inDl133UU03  p  ii?lSJ3AIUn  3H1 

•aiBD  ipiM 

3SB3ld 


T153    QQ2mS3T    Q 


THE   LIFE   AND   TEACHING   OF 
JESUS  THE   CHRIST 


Works  by  the  same  Author 

THE    DOCTRINE    OF    THE    CHURCH 
AND    CHRISTIAN   REUNION 

(Bampton  Lectures,  1920) 

HISTORY,    AUTHORITY     AND 
THEOLOGY 

ST.   PAUL   AND   CHRISTIANITY 

THE  MIRACLES  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT 

London,  John   Murray 


THE  >^ 

LIFE    AND    TEACHING 

OF  ^^ 

JESUS   THE    CHRIST 


-^eh 


\a 


BY  THE 

REV.  ARTHUR  C.  HEADLAM,  C.H.,  D.D. 

BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER 
FOEMERLY   FELLOW   OF  ALL  SOULS   COLLEGE,    OXFORD, 
PRINCIPAL   OF   king's   COLLEGE,    LONDON 
AND  REGIUS  PROFESSOR   OF  DIVINITY  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY   OF   OXFORD 


WITH  MAP 


NEW  YORK 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

AMERICAN   BRANCH:   35   West  32ND  Street 

LONDON,  TORONTO,  MELBOURNE  &  BOMBAY 

1923 


copyright,  1923 

By  Oxford  University  Press 

american  branch 

Iff  0^ 


PRINTED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  Of  AMERICA 


PREFACE 

This  work  is  a  fragment  of  a  larger  design  on  which  I 
have  been  engaged  for  nearly  ten  years,  and  is  devoted  to 
one  particular  problem  —  namely,  the  general  credibility  of 
the  traditional  account  of  the  life  and  work  of  our  Lord. 

There  are  widely  prevalent  at  the  present  time  two 
schools  of  criticism,  which  would  deny  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  this  credibility.  The  one  which  prevails  somewhat 
largely,  I  believe,  in  America,  denies  entirely  the  historical 
character  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity,  and  seeks  the  ori- 
gin of  the  Christian  religion  exclusively  in  myths  and  tend- 
encies. These  theories  in  this  extreme  form  have  never  re- 
ceived the  assent  of  competent  scholars,  and  need  hardly 
be  treated  seriously;  in  any  case,  if  there  is  any  value  at 
all  in  the  investigations  contained  in  this  volume  they  may 
certainly  be  dismissed.  The  second  demands  more  serious 
consideration.  It  maintains  that,  although  we  may  accept 
as  certain  the  fact  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  real  per- 
son and  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  religion,  and  may  ac- 
cept also  some  portion  of  what  is  narrated  about  Him,  yet 
we  must  also  recognize  that  the  greater  part  of  the  contents 
of  the  Gospel  tells  us  not  what  He  taught,  but  what  the 
Christian  Church  which  grew  up  after  His  death  thought. 

It  is  with  this  school  that  I  am  mainly  concerned;  for 
in  one  form  or  another  it  prevails  widely,  and  its  teaching 
is  accepted  by  many  whose  learning  and  reputation  give 
them  some  authority  to  speak.  It  is  true  that  when  we 
examine  the  matter  a  little  more  closely  this  authority 
seems  a  little  less  strong,  for  although  there  is  an  agreement 
that  a  large  part  of  the  Gospel  is  not  authentic,  there  is 
not  the  same  agreement  as  to  what  that  is.  When  we  ask 
what  is  the  original  and  historical  nucleus,  we  find  the 
greatest  variety  of  opinion.  Some  would  have  us  accept 
a  purely  ethical  Gospel,  others  would  lay  the  greatest  stress 


vi  PREFACE 

on   the   expectation   of   a   world    catastrophe   which  made 

ethical    considerations    of    very    slight    importance; some 

would  allow  that  Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  others 
would  ascribe  that  opinion  to  a  blunder  of  the  Apostles. 
And  when  we  turn  to  the  particular  narratives,  we  find 
the  same  diversity  of  opinion.  In  fact,  it  becomes  clear 
that  behind  this  negative  criticism  there  is  no  scientific 
method  to  give  certain  or  even  probable  results. 

It  is  against  such  theories  as  these  that  the  argument  of 
this  book  is  directed.  I  have  aimed,  in  the  first  place,  at 
showing  that,  accepting  the  results  of  modern  criticism, 
there  is  every  reason  to  think  that  the  subject-matter  of 
the  first  three  Gospels  represents  the  traditions  about  the 
life  and  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as  they  were  current 
in  the  earliest  years  of  the  Christian  Church.  Then, 
secondly,  that  it  harmonizes  with  all  that  we  know  of  the 
times  when  Jesus  lived  and  the  environment  in  which  He 
taught.  Thirdly,  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  is  harmonious 
throughout,  natural  in  its  language  and  form  to  the  cir- 
cumstances and  representing  a  unity  of  thought  transcend- 
ing anything  that  had  existed  before.  And  then,  fourthly, 
that  the  life  as  narrated  forms  a  consistent  whole.  The  re- 
sult of  these  investigations  is  to  satisfy  myself,  at  any  rate, 
that  we  have  a  trustworthy  account  of  the  life  and  teach- 
ing of  Jesus.  It  is  undeniably  fragmentary.  There  is  the 
difiiculty  which  we  find  in  all  study  of  past  history  of  re- 
constructing the  way  in  which  things  happened.  No  claim 
to  infallibiHty  or  inerrancy  is  possible.  But,  so  far  as  I 
am  personally  concerned,  I  feel  that  we  have  good  and 
trustworthy  material  on  which  to  work.  Whether  I  have 
sufficient  grounds  for  such  a  conclusion  I  must  leave  to  my 
readers  to  Judge. 

This  book  was  begun  in  the  most  thrilling  days  of  the 
Great  War,  at  a  time  when  the  British  Army  was  advanc- 
ing from  Egypt  to  Palestine,  when  the  scenes  and  places 
which  had  so  often  played  a  great  part  in  history  were 
daily  mentioned  in  the  despatches  of  our  army,  when  the 
great  maritime  road  saw  once  more  the  advance  of  an 
armed  host,  when  Gaza  was  once  more  besieged,  and  Jeru- 
salem taken,  and  Jericho  again  fell;    when  at  Megiddo  a 


PREFACE 


Vll 


world  conflict  was  once  more  decided,  and  English  and 
Australian  cavalry .  fought  where  Coeur  de  Lion  had  fought, 
traversed  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and  rode  through  the 
streets  of  Nazareth  and  past  the  Sea  of  Galilee  on  the 
great  advance  to  Damascus.  Peace  has  not  brought  all 
that  we  hoped  for  in  the  exhilaration  of  victory,  but  we 
may  pray  that  the  hills  and  valleys  where  Jesus  lived  and 
taught,  and  His  peaceful  home  at  Nazareth,  and  the  beau- 
tiful shores  and  waters  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  Caper- 
naum, and  Bethsaida,  and  Caesarea  of  sacred  memory,  may 
never  again  be  brought  under  the  blighting  influence  of 
Turkish  and  Mohammedan  rule. 

It  remains  to  say  that  a  considerable  part  of  this  book 
was  delivered  as  lectures,  first  in  the  University  of  Oxford 
and  then  in  King's  College,  London.  I  have  not  thought 
it  necessary  to  alter  the  signs  of  their  origin.  The  personal 
touch  which  should  never  be  absent  from  a  lecture  will, 
I  hope,  be  felt  to  be  not  out  of  place.  Too  great  formalism 
does  not  suit  the  biography  which  cannot  aim  at  complete- 
ness and  can  only  paint  aspects  of  a  Hfe  which  in  its 
reality  is  beyond  our  full  comprehension. 

I  must  express  my  thanks  to  my  friend  Dr.  C.  H.  Turner 
for  reading  the  whole  book  through  before  it  was  put  into 
type,  and  for  much  acute  and  helpful  criticism,  to  Dr. 
Burney  for  reading  the  first  proofs,  and  to  the  Rev.  R.  G. 
Plumptre  for  the  final  revision.    My  wife  has  again  assisted 

me  in  the  index. 

ARTHUR  C.  HEADLAM 

Christ  Church, 
Oxford. 

September,  1922. 


CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION 

The  Critical  Attitude pages  1-44 

The  purpose  of  this  work.    The  need  for  it.    The  authorities  for  the  Ufa 
of  Jesus. 

1.  The  four  Gospels.  The  meaning  and  value  of  criticism.  The  Sjti- 
optic  problem.    The  two  sources. 

2.  St.  Mark's  Gospel.  A  literary  unit.  Its  historical  value.  Its  au- 
thor.   Its  sources.    Its  date. 

3.  The  Discourses.  Its  probable  origin.  Its  contents.  Relation  to 
St.  Mark.    Its  date. 

4.  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  Its  author  and  date.  Method  of  composition. 
Its  sources.    Use  of  St.  Mark,  and  of  T/ie  Discourses.    Other  sources. 

5.  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  Its  origin.  Written  for  Jewish  Christians. 
Structure  of  the  Gospel.     Use  of  sources. 

6.  The  value  of  the  Synoptic  material.  Theory  of  Wellhausen.  Not 
supported  by  the  evidence.  The  Synoptic  material  earlier  than  the 
fall  of  Jerusalem,  Galilaean  in  origin,  little  influenced  by  Christian 
theology.    How  the  Synoptic  Gospels  should  be  used. 

7.  St.  John's  Gospel.  Difference  from  the  S3moptic  Gospels.  DiflS- 
culties  as  to  authorship.  Its  Aramaic  character.  Use  of  S3Tioptic 
Gospels.  Signs  of  independent  tradition.  Character  of  teaching. 
Method  of  use. 

8.  Secondary  sources.  The  Christian  Church.  Need  of  accounting 
for  it.    The  problem  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 

CHAPTER  I 

Palestine,  Civil  and  Religious,  at  the  Time  of  the  Chris- 
tian Era pages  45-93 

The  beginnings  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Longing  for  peace.  Virgil's  Mes- 
sianic Eclogue.  His '  unconscious  prophecy.  The  Jewish  attitude. 
The  two  ideals. 

1.  The  death  of  Herod  the  Great.  Accession  of  Archelaus.  Revolts 
in  Palestine.  The  settlement  of  Augustus.  Reign  of  Archelaus.  His 
banishment. 

2.  Judaea  a  Roman  province.  The  settlement  under  Quirinius.  The 
census.    Judas  the  Galilaean.    The  fourth  sect  of  the  Jews. 


CONTENTS 

,  The  Roman  procurators.  Coponius.  Ambibulus.  Rufus.  Valerius 
Gratus.  The  succession  of  high  priests.  Annas  and  Caiaphas.  Pon- 
tius Pilate.    His  misgovernment.    His  banishment. 

,  The  tetrarchy  of  Philip.  His  good  government.  The  tetrarchy  of 
Antipas.  Galilee.  Peraea.  Character  of  his  rule.  Herodias.  His 
banishment.  The  Decapolis.  The  neighbouring  territories.  The  Na- 
bataeans.    Lysanias.    Parthia. 

,  The  Rabbinical  schools.  The  Rabbis.  Hillel.  His  teaching.  Sham- 
mai.  The  severity  of  his  rules.  Jewish  exegesis.  Schools  of  Hillel 
and  Shammai.    The  value  of  the  teaching. 

,  Religion  and  piety  in  Israel.  The  testimony  of  St.  Luke.  The 
songs  of  the  Virgin  and  of  Simeon.     The  Blessings  of  the  synagogue 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Education  of  Jesus pages  94-132 

Jesus  of  Nazareth.    His  home  and  family, 

1.  GaUlee.  Its  fertility.  Its  roads.  Nazareth.  The  language  of  the 
Gospels.  Reminiscences  of  the  country.  Agriculture.  Animals, 
wild  and  domestic.  Domestic  life.  Proof  of  authenticity.  The  hu- 
man characteristics  of  Jesus. 

2.  The  spiritual  environment.  Jewish  education.  Visits  to  Jerusalem. 
Reading  and  writing.  The  language  of  Jesus.  The  religion  of 
Galilee.  The  scribes  and  Pharisees.  The  Herodians.  The  Zealots. 
Hellenic  thought.    Apocalyptic  literature. 

3.  Intellectual  presuppositions  of  the  Gospels.  Cosmology.  Heaven. 
Paradise.  Hades.  Gehenna.  Psychology.  The  heart.  The  soul. 
The  spirit.    The  body.    The  flesh.    Angelology.    Demonology.    Satan. 

4.  The  use  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures  by  Jesus.  Methods  of  interpreta- 
tion. The  legahstic.  Midrashic.  Allegorical.  The  spiritual  interpre- 
tation of  Jesus.  His  theological  language  that  of  His  own  time. 
The  kingdom  of  Heaven.    Messianic  titles.    The  servant  of  Jehovah. 


CHAPTER  III 

John  the  Baptist pages  133-169 

The  expectation  of  the  day  of  the  Lord. 

1.  John  the  Baptist;    his  birth,  his  training,  his  message,  his  baptism, 
his  preaching,  his  expectation  of  the  Messiah. 

2.  The  Baptism  of  Jesus;    its  significance.     Jesus  and  John.     Jesus  as 
the  disciple  of  John. 

3.  The   imprisonment   of   John.     The   dispersal   of   his   disciples.     He 
sends  his  disciples  to  Jesus.    The  death  of  John. 

4.  The  explanation  of  John's  ministry.     Not  unhistorical.     No  connec- 
tion with  the  Essenes.    Not  merely  eschatological.    John  as  prophet. 


CONTENTS  xi 

In  what  sense  Elijah.     His  witness  to  Jesus.       The  significance  of 
his  prophetic  mission.    His  place  in  history. 

CHAPTER   IV 

The  Galilaean  Ministry pages  170-206 

The  Lake  of  Galilee.     Gennesaret.     Capernaum. 

1.  Jesus  comes  to  Capernaum.  The  call  of  the  disciples.  The  first 
day.  The  Galilaean  Ministry.  The  journeys.  The  synagogue.  Suc- 
cess. 

2.  Causes  of  influence.    Authority.    Sympathy.    Mercy. 

3.  The  possessed.  The  prevailing  theory.  The  casting  out  of  devils. 
The  attitude  of  Jesus. 

4.  Miracles  of  healing.  The  evidence.  Dependent  "on  faith.  The  fail- 
ures. Evidence  of  spiritual  authority.  The  reserve  of  Jesus.  The 
purpose  of  miracles. 

5.  The  opposition.  The  forgiveness  of  sins.  Association  with  publi- 
cans and  sinners.  Fasting.  The  Sabbath.  Separation  from  the 
synagogue. 

6.  The  organization  of  the  Church.  Discipleship.  The  Twelve;  The 
devout  women.    The  mission  of  the  Twelve. 

CHAPTER  V 

The  New  Teaching  . ' pages  207-239 

J    Jesus  as  a  teacher.    The  "Sermon  on  the  Mount"  in  St.  Matthew.    The 
"Sermon  on  the  Plain"  in  St.  Luke.    The  critical  problem. 

1.  The  Beatitudes.  Contrast  with  the  Old  Testament.  Who  are  the 
poor?  Contrast  with  later  Christian  teaching.  The  acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla. 

2.  The  New  Law  and  the  Old  Law.  The  paradox  of  Christ's  teaching. 
The  fulfilment  which  supersedes.  External  and  internal.  Negative 
and  positive.  The  law  of  love.  Of  loving  your  enemies.  The  Jew- 
ish rule.    The  originality  of  Christianity.    The  word  agape. 

3.  The  Christian  ideal.  Comparison  with  the  Greek  ideal.  The  as- 
cetic ideal.  Christian  humanism.  The  ideal  of  duty.  Is  the  Chris- 
tian ideal  possible?  Can  we  love  our  enemies?  The  law  of  non- 
resistance.    Tolstoi.    The  conduct  of  the  Christian. 

4.  Religious  duties.  Almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting.  The  importance 
of  prayer.  The  Lord's  Prayer.  The  religion  of  the  spirit.  The  story 
of  the  Samaritan  woman. 

5.  The  purpose  of  life.  The  vanity  of  wealth.  Anxiety  about  worldly 
things.    The  true  end.    The  pursuit  of  righteousness. 

6.  The  golden  rule.  The  Jewish  form.  The  Christian  rule  positive 
not  negative.  Regards  thoughts  as  well  as  deeds.  Righteous  judg- 
ment. 

7.  Fundamental  principle  of  the  new  life.  Trust  in  God.  The  two  ways. 


xii  CONTENTS 

The  morality  of  Jesus.  How  far  authentic?  How  far  original?  The 
criticism  of  Nietzsche.  The  Christian  principle  harmonizes  with  the 
reaUty  of  the  world. 

CHAPTER   VI 

The  Kingdom  of  God pages  240-264 

The  "Kingdom  of  God"  sums  up  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

1.  A  popular  religious  expression.  Derived  from  the  Old  Testament. 
The  Davidic  kingdom.  The  Divine  Sovereignty.  Righteousness. 
The  day  of  the  Lord.    The  Resurrection. 

2.  The  Jewish  expectation.  An  earthly  kingdom.  A  kingdom  of 
righteousness.  The  Apocalyptic  hope.  The  sovereignty  of  God  on 
earth.    What  did  people  hope  for  at  the  time  of  our  Lord? 

3.  The  "Kingdom  of  God"  as  used  by  Jesus.  The  parables  of  the  king- 
dom. Why  did  He  speak  in  parables?  The  three  meanings  of  the 
kingdom  —  the  word  of  God,  the  Christian  dispensation,  the  final 
consummation. 

4.  The  kingdom  of  God  and  the  kingdom  of  Satan.  John  the  Baptist 
and  the  kingdom.  The  kingdom  and  righteousness.  The  kingdom 
and  the  Hfe  to  come.  The  coming  of  the  kingdom.  The  kingdom 
and  the  supremacy  of  the  divine  will.     Christianity. 

5.  The  kingdom  and  the  Parousia.  The  purpose  of  Jesus.  One  har- 
monious to  His  position,  consistent  with  His  other  teaching,  different 
from  later  ideals. 

6.  The  golden  age.  The  kingdom  the  sphere  in  which  God's  will  is 
done.  The  two  aspects  of  Christianity.  The  individualistic  view 
and  the  hope  of  a  future  life.  The  social  view  and  the  well-being  of 
mankind.    True  Christianity  transcends  both. 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Crisis  of  the  Ministry pages  265-289 

The  crisis  and  its  causes. 

1.  The  mission  of  the  Apostles.  The  charge  to  them.  Effect  of  the 
mission.  Herod  Antipas  hears  of  Jesus.  The  return  of  the  Apostles. 
Retirement  of  Jesus. 

2.  The  feeding  of  the  multitude.  The  people  would  make  Jesus  King. 
Voyage  on  the  lake.  The  walking  on  the  water.  The  character  of 
the  event.    The  discourse  on  the  Bread  of  Life. 

3.  The  landing  at  Gennesaret.  Dispute  with  the  Pharisees.  The  ritual 
law.  The  demand  for  a.  sign.  Dangers  of  the  situation.  The  re- 
treat of  Jesus.  Journey  to  north  and  return  by  Decapolis  to  Beth- 
saida. 

4.  Caesarea  Philippi.  The  confession  of  Peter.  Jesus  acknowledged 
as  Messiah.  His  methods.  The  suffering  Messiah  and  the  lesson  of 
suffering. 

5.  The  transfiguration.    Jesus  prepares  for  the  end. 


CONTENTS  xiii 

CHAPTER   VIII 

The  Messiah pages  290-314 

The  temptation.    The  genuineness  of  the  story.    Its  impHcations. 

1.  The  Jewish  expectation  of  the  Messiah.  The  ideal  monarchy.  The 
ideal  King. 

2.  The  later  Jewish  hope.  The  book  of  Daniel.  The  Messiah  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi.  The  book  of  Enoch.  The  Psalms  of  Solomon.  The 
Jewish  conception.     Its  omissions. 

3.  The  titles  of  Jesus.  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah.  The  Son  of  God. 
The  Son  of  Man.    The  servant.     The  Lord.     The  Son  of  David. 

4.  The  Messiah  in  Jewish  theology.  Desire  of  a  sign.  "Signs"  in 
Jewish  literature.    Difference  of  our  Lord's  conceptions. 

5.  Conclusion.  The  credibility  of  the  life  of  Christ.  Naturalness  of 
the  miracles.  The  teaching  of  Jesus.  Its  spiritual  character.  The 
Messiah. 

Note  on  Chronology page  315 

Chronological  Table "     320 

Notes  on  the  Map "     322 

Index "     327 

Map  of  Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Our  Lord at  end  of  hook 


TO  THE  MEMORY  OF  THE 
MEN  OF  THE  BRITISH  EMPIRE 
WHO  IN  THE  GREAT  WAR 
LAID  DOWN  THEIR  LIVES  FOR 
THAT  HOLY  LAND  WHERE 
JESUS  LIVED  AND  TAUGHT 
AND     DIED. 


THE  LIFE  AND  TEACHING  OF  JESUS 
THE  CHRIST 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

It  is  the  aim  of  this  work  to  give  some  account  of  the  life 
and  teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity. Such  a  task  may  be  held  to  be  both  unnecessary 
and  presumptuous.  It  may  be  pointed  out  that  we  have 
four  original  books,  accessible  to  all,  written  by  those  who 
were  either  themselves  witnesses  of  what  they  described  or 
had  lived  in  the  closest  intimacy  with  those  who  were,  that 
these  contain  an  inimitable  account  of  the  life  of  Jesus, 
and  that  nothing  can  supersede  or  even  supplement  them. 
Every  reader  has  all  that  can  be  known  before  him,  and 
no  one  can  add  to  or  increase  our  knowledge. 

Of  course,  fundamentally,  that  contention  is  true.  No 
one  can  supersede  the  four  Gospels,  and  no  one  wishes 
to  do  so.  But  two  grave  reasons  make  a  work  such  as  the 
present  one  not  unnecessary.  It  is  well  known  that  an  im- 
posing amount  of  learned  criticism  has  appeared  which  has 
cast  grave  doubts  on  the  credibility  of,  at  any  rate,  a  por- 
tion of  these  accounts,  and  there  is  a  natural  demand  for 
some  estimate  of  the  value  of  this  criticism.  And  then, 
also,  the  documents  in  question  are  all  of  them  of  a  frag- 
mentary character.  They  were  written  more  than  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago.  The  environment  in  which  the  life  of 
Jesus  was  lived  is  unknown  to  those  who  have  not  studied 
it.  The  language  and  thought  of  that  day  were  different 
from  our  own.  Much  may  be  learnt  by  combining  and 
comparing  the  various  accounts,  and  interpreting  them  in 
the  light  of  all  the  knowledge  that  we  can  accumulate.  The 
Gospels  need  translation  for  us,  not  only  in  language,  but 
in  thought. 


2  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

If  this  be  so,  I  think  the  presumption  may  be  excused, 
provided  that  we  are  prepared  to  approach  our  task  with 
fitting  humihty  and  reverence.  Many  others  have  made  the 
same  attempt,  and  the  works  that  they  have  produced  may 
be  to  us  both  a  warning  and  an  encouragement  —  an  en- 
couragement, because  I  suppose  that  there  is  not  one  of 
them  from  which  we  may  not  learn  something;  a  warning, 
because  there  is  not  one  the  inadequacy  and  imperfection 
of  which  is  not  apparent.  They  have  each  served  their 
time  in  their  circle  and  have  passed  away.  What  we  may 
hope  is  that,  if  our  spirit  be  right,  we  too  may  render 
some  service  to  our  own  generation.^ 

The  first  duty  of  anyone  who  would  write  a  biography  is 
to  estimate  the  extent  and  value  of  his  authorities.  The 
authorities  for  the  life  of  Jesus  are  twofold  —  primary  and 
secondary.  The  primary  are  the  four  Gospels;  to  the 
examination  of  these  the  main  part  of  our  task  must  be 
directed.  The  secondary  are  somewhat  varied,  and,  so  far 
as  regards  the  life  of  Jesus  Himself,  most  fragmentary. 
They  include  such  information  as  may  be  elicited  from  Jo- 
sephus,^  from  Greek  and  Roman  authors  and  from  Jewish 
tradition.^  Then  there  are  the  extra-canonical  and  apoc- 
ryphal records  of  our  Lord's  life,  and  such  sayings  ascribed 
to  Him  as  have  been  preserved  by  Christian  tradition.'* 
More  important  than  these  for  our  estimation  of  Jesus  is 
the  evidence  afforded  by  the  opinions  held  about  Him  and 
the  character  of  His  influence  in  the  Early  Church.  If  we 
desire  to  know  what  manner  of  person  a  man  may  be,  we 
ask  not  only  what  he  has  done  and  said,  but  also  what 

1  The  most  brilliant  account  of  the  attempts  to  write  the  life  of  Christ 
is  that  contained  in  Von  Rcimarns  zii  Wrede,  Eine  Geschichie  der  Leben- 
Jesu-Forschung,  by  Albert  Schweitzer  (Tubingen,  1906),  translated  into 
English,  under  the  title  of  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Christ,  by  W.  M. 
Montgomery,  with  a  preface  by  F.  C.  Burkitt. 

2  On  Josephus,   see   Schiirer,  Geschichte   (third  and  fourth  editions),  I., 

PP-  77/,  544/- 

3  On  Jewish  tradition,  see  R.  T.  Herford,  Christianity  in  Talmtid  and 
Midrash,  London,  1903. 

^  See,  on  the  extra-canonical  sayings  of  Jesus,  Alfred  Resch,  Agrapha  in 
Texte  und  U titer suchimgen,  Neue  Folge,  vol.  xv.,  3,  4;  Lock  and  Sanday, 
Two  Lectures  on  the  "Sayings  of  Jesus,"  Oxford,  1897. 


THE  AUTHORITIES  3 

people  with  whom  he  came  in  contact  thought  of  him,  what 
impression  he  made  on  his  own  generation,  and  what  in- 
fluence he  left  behind  him  in  the  world.  All  these  are  im- 
portant elements  in  the  final  picture  that  we  can  construct. 
So  it  is  with  Jesus.  The  ApostoHc  Church  must  be  ac- 
counted for.  Not  only  what  it  recorded  of  Him,  not  only 
what  it  thought  of  Him,  although  both  of  these  are  of  fun- 
damental importance,  but  also  the  fact  that  it  existed.  The 
Christian  Church  is  the  great  witness  to  its  Founder;  and 
no  life  of  Christ  which  fails  to  account  for  Christianity 
can  be  adequate. 

To  all  this  we  must  add  the  picture  that  we  are  able  to 
form  of  the  circumstances  in  which  Jesus  lived.  To  paint 
that  picture  needs  a  full  acquaintance  with  the  life  and 
literature  of  the  times;  and  it  is  certainly  remarkable  that 
He  should  have  lived  in  the  great  days  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire —  a  period  in  the  history  of  the  ancient  world  when 
from  literary  remains,  from  inscriptions,  from  antiquities, 
and  from  the  fact  that  that  Empire  summed  up  in  a  re- 
markable way  the  history  of  the  past,  our  knowledge  is  so 
ample.  Let  us  remember,  also,  that  for  studying  the  con- 
temporary life  and  thought  of  Judaism  we  have  a  rich 
store  of  material  which  is  only  gradually  becoming  known. 
We  have  the  books  of  Josephus;  we  have  the  great  body  of 
apocryphal  and  pseudonymous  Jewish  literature,^  on  which 
so  much  has  been  done  in  recent  years  and  particularly  in 
Oxford;  we  have  the  works  of  Philo;  and  we  have  the  Jew- 
ish tradition  embodied  in  the  Targums,  the  Mishna,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Talmud,  the  Midrash  and  later  literature.^ 
In  all  these  directions  there  is  full  opportunity  for  research 
and  discovery,  and  there  is  still  much  to  be  learned  towards 
illustrating,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  Hfe  of  Jesus. 

^  This  has  been  collected  together  for  English  readers  in  The  Apocrypha 
and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament  in  English,  edited  by  R.  H.  Charles 
(Oxford:    The  Clarendon  Press,  1913). 

^  The  fullest  information  on  all  these  points  may  be  found  in  Schiirer, 
Geschichte  des  Jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesii  Christi,  third  and  fourth 
editions  (Leipzig,  1898-1907).  There  is  an  English  translation  of  an  earlier 
edition. 


4  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

I 

We  turn  now  to  our  primary  authorities,  the  four 
Gospels,  and  the  criticism  of  them  which  has  grown  up  in 
the  last  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

Let  me  begin  by  saying  one  word  of  what  we  mean  by 
"criticism,"  or,  as  it  is  often  called,  to  distinguish  it  from 
textual  criticism,  "higher  criticism,"  and  what  is  its 
purpose.  It  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  in  itself 
wrong  and  dangerous.  It  is,  of  course,  nothing  of  the  sort. 
It  means  the  application  of  everything  that  we  know  of 
the  history  of  a  document  —  external  criticism  —  and  of 
everything  that  we  can  learn  by  an  examination  of  its 
contents  —  internal  criticism  —  towards  discovering  as 
much  as  possible  about  its  origin,  its  authorship,  and  its 
historical  value.  There  is  no  more  fascinating  question 
that  we  can  ask  than  this:  How  did  the  Gospels  grow  up? 
Under  what  circumstances  were  they  written?  There  is  no 
more  important  question  that  we  can  ask  than  whether 
they  contain  true  history.  These  are  the  two  main  ques- 
tions with  which  critics  of  the  New  Testament  are  con- 
cerned, and  it  must  be  recognized  that  not  only  in  regard  to 
our  study  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  also  in  relation  to  the 
foundation  of  Christian  doctrine  and  life,  they  are  of  tran- 
scendent importance. 

But  how  far  is  criticism  equal  to  the  task?  Let  me  give 
you  an  instance  of  this  higher  criticism.  You  know  that 
Sir  Walter  Scott  originally  published  the  Waverley  Novels 
anonymously,  that  they  were  an  extraordinary  success,  and 
that  naturally  the  question  who  was  their  author  roused  the 
greatest  interest.  Now  Scott  was  already  well  known  as  a 
poet,  the  author  of  vigorous  and  romantic  poems  dealing 
with  Scottish  history,  and  an  able  and  ingenious  work  was 
written  proving  that  Scott,  the  author  of  the  Lay  of  the 
Last  Minstrel  and  the  Lady  of  the  Lake,  was  also  the  author 
of  Waverley.  The  writer  examined  the  external  circum- 
stances, the  style,  the  subject-matter,  the  personal  tastes 
and  interests  of  the  two  authors,  and  showed  strong  grounds 
for    believing  that   they  were  the  same  person.^    Here  we 

1  See  Letters  to  Richard  Hcbcr,  Esq.,  containing  Critical  Remarks  on  the 
Series  of  Novels  beginmng  with  "Waverley,"  and  an  Attempt  to  ascertain  its 


THE   FOUR   GOSPELS  5 

have  an  instance  of  a  careful  and  intelligent  higher  criticism 
which  was  found  to  be  correct.  The  same  methods  have 
been  pursued  in  many  varied  fields  of  literature,  often  in  a 
way  to  carry  conviction.  The  problems  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment are  for  many  reasons  peculiarly  difhcult,  since  the 
literature  is  unique  in  character,  but  there  is  no  reason  for 
doubting  that  a  careful  and  painstaking  enquiry  may 
ultimately  teach  us  a  good  deal  about  the  composition  of 
the  documents  of  which  it  is  made  up. 

With  this  amount  of  preface  let  me  turn  to  the  Gospels, 
and  attempt  to  put  before  you,  so  far  as  I  can,  what  appear 
to  me  to  be  the  assured  results  of  criticism  as  applied  to 
them.  I  cannot  hope  to  give  you  anything  original,  but 
it  is  necessary  that,  as  an  introduction  to  the  study  of  our 
Lord's  hfe,  our  critical  attitude  should  be  defined.^ 
</  It  is  well  known  that  the  four  Gospels  may  be  divided 
into  two  groups.  The  first  three  —  those  known  as  St. 
Matthew,  St.  Mark,  and  St.  Luke  —  have  marked  resem- 
blances to  one  another  and  certain  marked  differences  from 
St.  John,  and,  because  they  give  a  common  picture  of  our 
Lord's  life,  are  known  as  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  If  you  read 
them  carefully  you  cannot  help  noticing  that  they  have  a 
large  amount  of  matter  in  common,  but  that  each  also  has 
its  own  special  features.  It  is  the  need  for  explaining  these 
resemblances  and  differences  which  forms  what  is  called  the 
Synoptic  problem,  and  on  this  an  imposing  amount  of 
thought  and  work  has  been  expended  during  the  last  cen- 
tury and  a  half. 

In  particular  let  us  remember  that  much  able  and  scien- 
tific work  has  been  produced  in  Oxford,  under  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  late  Dr.  Sanday.  Many  of  the  contributions 
thus  made   are   of  real   value,   and   in  particular   the   re- 

Author  (London,  1821).  The  author  was  John  Leycester  Adolphus  of 
St.  John's  College,  Oxford  (see  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  sub.  voc). 
The  work  is  referred  to  favourably  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Fortunes  of 
Nigel. 

^  The  best  single  work  to  which  the  reader  may  be  referred  is,  I  think, 
Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents  (Cambridge:  The  University 
Press,  1903-1920).  A  very  full  account  of  opinion  on  the  subject  will  be 
found  in  MoiJatt,  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament 
(Edinburgh:   T.  and  T.  Clark,  191 1). 


6  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

searches  of  Sir  John  Hawkins  have  been  accepted  in  the 
world  of  scholars  as  of  supreme  importance  in  establish- 
ing results  which  may  be  considered  certain.^  They  are 
patient,  cautious,  and  methodical.  They  attack  a  problem 
limited  in  scope  with  completeness,  and  within  the  sphere 
outlined  arrive  at  conclusions  which  have  been  accepted. 
"It  is  impossible,"  writes  Professor  von  Harnack,  "to 
overrate  Hawkins." 

As  I  do  not  wish  to  go  over  ground  which  has  been  suf- 
ficiently worked,  it  will  be  enough  to  state  shortly  what 
may  be  considered  to  be  agreed  on  as  to  the  composition 
of  the  first  three  Gospels.  Let  me  take  the  summary  given 
us  by  Dr.  Stanton.^  It  may  be  recognized,  he  says,  that 
the  resemblances  between  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels  are 
so  great  as  to  imply  a  common  Greek  source,  and  greater 
than  can  be  explained  by  the  influence  of  oral  tradition. 
Neither  did  St.  Matthew  make  regular  use  of  St.  Luke, 
nor  St.  Luke  of  St.  Matthew;  they  are  almost  if  not  com- 
pletely independent  of  one  another.  It  is,  moreover,  al- 
most universally  agreed  that  either  St.  Mark's  Gospel  or  a 
record  virtually  identical  with  it  was  used  by  the  First  and 
Third  Evangelists.  It  is  further  agreed  that  they  had  a 
second  common  source  which  contained  a  record  of  the 
words  of  Jesus.  This  is  by  many  writers  called  "Q",  a 
designation  selected  as  quite  neutral,  and  not  implying 
any  theory.  It  is  the  initial  letter  of  the  German  word 
Quelle,  which  means  "source."  I  propose  to  call  it  The 
Discourses.  The  practical  result  is  that  we  must  accept  the 
priority  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  and  recognize  that  it  was 
used  by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  and  that  there  was 
also  a  second  early  source  common  to  these  two  Gospels. 

I  do  not  think  that  I  need  labour  the  arguments  which 
have  convinced  critics  of  the  priority  of  St.  Mark.^    Anyone 

^  See  Studies  in  the  Synoptic  Problem,  by  Members  of  the  University  of 
Oxford,  edited  by  W.  Sanday  (Oxford:  Clarendon  Press,  191 1),  and  Horae 
Synopticae,  by  the  Rev.  Sir  John  C.  Hawkins,  Bart.,  second  edition  (Oxford: 
Clarendon  Press,  1909). 

^  See  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  II.,  chap,  i.,  pp.  1-60. 

^  It  may  be  convenient  to  state  here  that  I  use  the  names  St.  Matthew, 
St.  Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John  without  committing  myself  to  any  opinion 
as  to  the  correctness  of  the  traditional  attribution. 


THE   SOURCf:S   OF   THE   GOSPELS  7 

who  will  can  test  the  matter  for  himself.  Let  him  compare 
the  three  Gospels  together,  and  he  will  find  that  the  greater 
part  of  St.  Mark  is  contained  in  the  other  two  Gospels,  and 
for  the  most  part  in  the  same  order;  and  that  while  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  —  especially  St.  Matthew  —  occa- 
sionally differ  from  the  Mar  can  order,  they  never  agree  in 
their  differences.  Further,  let  him  compare  the  individual 
narratives  together.  He  will  see  that  whereas  St.  Matthew 
and  St.  Mark  agree  together  against  St.  Luke,  and  St.  Luke 
and  St.  Mark  agree  together  against  St.  Matthew,  it  rarely 
happens  that  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  agree  together 
against  St.  Mark  in  these  common  narratives,  and  hardly 
ever  in  any  important  point.^  The  reason  for  believing  in 
a  second  common  source  is  that  if  we  eliminate  from  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  all  the  matter  they  share  with  St. 
Mark,  there  is  still  a  considerable  amount  that  they  have 
in  common  with  one  another,  and  the  resemblances  are  in 
many  cases  so  close  as  to  demand  that  this  common  source 
should  be  literary. 

Only  on  one  point  may  it  be  considered  that  there  is  still 
room  for  some  difference  of  opinion.  St.  Luke  omits  a 
considerable  portion  of  St.  Mark,  and  it  has  been  held  (as, 
for  example,  by  Dr.  Stanton)  that  he  had  before  him  an 
earlier  edition  of  that  Gospel  which  omitted  certain  pas- 
sages which  might  be  held  to  be  interpolations.^  But  I 
think  that  the  arguments  on  the  other  side,  given  by  Sir 
John  Hawkins,  are  fairly  conclusive.^  They  are  first  of  all 
the  unity  of  style  exhibited  by  the  whole  of  the  second  Gos- 
pel, and,  secondly,  the  fact  that  adequate  reasons  harmo- 
nizing with  the  Hterary  habits  of  St.  Luke  may  be  found  for 
his  omission  of  these  sections.  St.  Luke  is  careful  to  avoid 
repetitions;  and  it  will  be  found  that  generally,  when  he 
omits  matter  contained  in  St.  Mark,  it  is  because  it  appears 
to  be  a  repetition  of  what  occurs  elsewhere  in  his  Gospel. 

1  The  most  recent  discussion  on  this  point  will  be  found  in  The  Study 
of  the  New  Testament,  1883  and  1920,  by  Cuthbert  H.  Turner  (Oxford: 
Clarendon  Press,  1920),  p.  36. 

^  Stanton,  op.  cit.,  pp.  150  J'. 

^  Hawkins,  Three  Limitations  to  St.  Luke's  Use  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  in 
Horae  Syno plicae,  pp.  29-94. 


8  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

There  are  one  or  two  other  Hterary  habits  of  his 
which  also  influence  him,  such  as  the  adapting  of  his  Gos- 
pel to  the  needs  of  his  Gentile  readers,  and  consequently 
the  omission  or  curtailment  of  what  would  not  concern  them 
—  for  instance,  detailed  references  to  Jewish  customs  and 
the  Jewish  law.  Personally  I  am  fairly  certain  that  St. 
Luke  had  our  St.  Mark  before  him  pretty  much  as  we  have  it. 

II 

Our  first  business,  then,  will  be  to  find  out  all  that  we 
can  know  about  St.  Mark's  Gospel. 

To  begin  with,  it  is  a  literary  unit.  It  is  a  book  with  a 
style  of  its  own,  and  is  not  a  compilation,  and  this  style  is 
found  throughout  the  whole  Gospel.  This  unity,  of  course, 
does  not  mean  that  the  author  may  not  have  had  sources 
out  of  which  he  constructed  his  work,  just  as  the  other 
Gospels  had,  but  it  does,  I  think,  mean  that  we  should  have 
a  good  deal  of  difhculty  in  discovering  them.  This  point 
we  shall  discuss  later.  Again,  this  unity  is  quite  compatible 
with  some  clumsiness  of  construction.  Not  all  writers  are 
very  skilful  at  constructing  a  book.  What  is  impHed,  I 
think,  is  that  the  author  had  a  definite  purpose  before  him 
which  he  carried  out  fairly  consistently,  and  that  he  had  a 
clear  conception  of  the  work  and  life  of  our  Lord. 

I  would  ask  you  now  to  study  with  care  the  life  of  Jesus 
as  presented  in  this  Gospel,  and  to  assist  you  in  doing 
that  I  would  refer  to  a  brilliant  exposition  of  it  by  Dr. 
Burkitt  in  his  book  on  The  Gospel  History  and  Us  Trans- 
mission} He  discusses  the  two  questions:  "Does  the  story 
of  Jesus  Christ,  as  given  by  St.  Mark,  approve  itself  as 
an  adequate  historical  outline  of  the  main  events?"  and 
''Does  the  story  of  Jesus  Christ  fit  into  general  history?" 
To  both  questions  he  gives  an  affirmative  answer,  and  he 
gives,  as  I  think,  adequate  grounds  for  doing  so. 

He  points  out  how  the  Gospel  begins  by  describing  the 
impression  which  the  preaching  of  Jesus  first  made.  His 
power,   His  authority,   and  His  popularity.     Then   comes 

*  The  Gospel  History  mid  its  Transmission,  by  F.  Crawford  Burkitt 
(Edinburgh:   T.  and  T.  Clark,  1906),  pp.  65-104. 


THE   GOSPEL   OF   ST.   MARK  9 

the  early  opposition  from  the  constitutional  authorities,  and 
for  a  time  we  have  on  the  one  side  a  growing  popularity, 
on  the  other  an  increasing  opposition.  The  result  is  a 
breach  with  the  synagogue.  That  naturally  leads  to  the 
organization  of  the  new  community  apart  from  official 
Judaism.  At  first  Jesus  preaches  in  the  synagogues;  later 
we  find  that  He  does  not  do  so  except  on  one  occasion  at 
Nazareth.  So  He  chooses  His  apostles,  the  first  step  in  the 
organization  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  second  result 
is  more  serious.  John  had  been  beheaded,  and  Herod 
Antipas  learns  about  Jesus.  That  means  that  henceforth 
His  life  is  in  danger.  But  His  work  is  not  accomplished; 
His  time  has  not  yet  come;  a  prophet  cannot  perish  except 
in  Jerusalem.  So  Jesus  for  a  time  avoids  danger.  The 
next  period  of  ministry  is  one  of  retirement,  and,  as  seems 
probable,  the  private  instruction  of  His  disciples.  The 
district  which  is  dangerous  for  Jesus  is  the  territory  of 
Herod  Antipas.  So  we  find  Him  at  Bethsaida,  or  travelling 
in  the  coasts  of  Tyre  and  Sidon,  or  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  or 
in  the  Decapolis.  It  is  a  period  of  retreat.  Its  culmination 
is  the  confession  of  Peter  at  Caesarea  Philippi.  Then  comes 
the  final  journey  to  Jerusalem  with  the  conscious  expecta- 
tion of  the  end. 

We  shall  work  out  this  in  greater  detail  when  we  come 
to  our  history.  I  have  only  sketched  it  here,  as  it  bears 
on  the  historical  character  of  St.  Mark.  That  Gospel  gives, 
as  I  believe,  a  coherent  and  intelligible,  but  by  no  means 
a  complete,  account  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  and  one  which 
harmonizes  with  the  political  circumstances  of  the  time.  It 
has  the  appearance  of  being  authentic  history.  That  is  the 
point  for  which  Professor  Burkitt  contends,  and  I  believe 
that  his  contention  is  sound. 

And  now  I  will  ask  you  to  turn  to  what  we  can  learn 
from  external  sources  about  the  Gospel.  We  have  a  well- 
known  statement  of  the  early  Christian  writer  Papias,  who 
lived  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  often  quoted 
and  often  commented  on: 

"Mark  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter  wrote 
down  accurately  everything  that  he  remembered,  without, 
however,   recording  in   order  what  was   said   or   done   by 


lo  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

Christ.  For  neither  did  he  hear  the  Lord,  nor  did  he 
follow  Him;  but  afterwards,  as  I  said,  attended  Peter,  who 
adapted  his  instructions  to  the  needs  (of  his  hearers),  but 
had  no  design  of  giving  a  connected  account  of  the  Lord's 
discourses.  So  then  Mark  made  no  mistake,  while  he  thus 
wrote  down  some  things  as  he  remembered  them;  for  he 
made  it  his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he  heard, 
or  to  set  down  any  false  statement  thereon."  ^ 

Apart  from  the  criticisms  which  were,  perhaps,  intended 
to  contrast  St.  Mark  with  the  systematic  account  of  our 
Lord's  teaching  given  by  St.  Matthew,  and  the  chrono- 
logical framework  of  Jewish  feasts  given  by  St.  John,  the 
important  point  that  we  learn  from  this  is  that  the  Gospel 
was  written  by  St.  Mark,  and  that  it  gives  us,  so  far  as 
the  writer  remembered  them,  the  substance  of  St.  Peter's 
instructions  on  the  life  of  our  Lord. 

To  this  we  may  add  a  statement  of  Irenaeus,  who  lived 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  second  century,  that  after  the  death 
of  Peter  and  Paul,  "Mark,  who  was  the  disciple  and  inter- 
preter of  Peter  [whose  knowledge  of  Greek  it  is  implied  had 
been  imperfect],  handed  down  to  us  in  writing  the  preach- 
ing of  Peter."  ^ 

Now  if  our  analysis  of  the  character  of  the  Gospel  be 
correct,  this  external  tradition  fits  in  admirably  with  the 
internal  evidence.  If  the  history  gives  a  coherent  account 
of  our  Lord's  life,  it  must  come  from  a  good  authority,  and 
all  the  more  as  it  is  probable  that  the  history  is  much  better 
than  the  author  realized.  It  is  doubtful,  it  seems  to  me, 
whether  he  understood  what  was  implied  in  the  order  of 
events  as  he  narrated  them,  and  this  may,  perhaps,  explain 
the  few  narratives  which  do  not  cohere  with  the  general 
scheme.  The  point  is  that  there  was  behind  St.  Mark  an 
authentic  account  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  narrated  by  one  who 
had  himself  taken  part  in  it,  and  therefore  giving  material 
from  which  we  can  construct  a  coherent  story. 

Nor  is  this  all.     Many  of  the  narratives  seem  to  me  to 

^  The  fragment  is  given  by  Eusebius,  Hist.  EccL,  iii.,  39,   15.     I  have 
used  the  translation  given  by  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers,  p.  529. 
*  Irenaeus,  Adv.  Haereses,  iii.,  i,  2. 


THE   EVIDENCE   OF   ST.   PETER  ii 

show  traces  of  their  actual  origin.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Gospel  we  have  given  us  what  seems  to  be  an  account  of 
an  actual  day  at  Capernaum,  with  notes  of  times  appended. 
The  call  of  the  disciples,  the  preaching  in  the  synagogue  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  the  healing  of  Peter's  mother-in-law,  the 
cure  of  the  sick  and  those  possessed  with  devils  "at  even, 
when  the  sun  was  set,"  the  retirement  of  Jesus  into  solitude 
to  pray  ''in  the  morning  a  great  while  before  day,"  the 
anxiety  of  Simon  that  He  should  respond  to  the  demand  of 
the  people,  and  the  journey  through  Galilee  —  all  these  fol- 
low one  another  in  a  natural  and  orderly  sequence.  Surely 
we  have  it  all  given  thus  clearly,  because  it  was  the  memory 
of  the  greatest  day  in  Peter's  life.  It  was  the  day  when  his 
discipleship  had  begun.  Again  and  again  he  must  have 
told  the  story,  and  the  vividness  of  the  impression  would 
never  fade.  Many  years  afterwards,  when  in  distant  Rome 
his  life's  work  was  coming  to  its  end,  he  would  look  back 
to  that  great  day  by  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  when  the  call  had 
come  and  the  response  been  made  —  a  day  of  such  infinite 
importance  in  his  own  life  and  in  the  Gospel  history. 
Surely  no  mere  power  of  historic  imagination  has  given 
us  these  scenes. 

Nor  is  this  a  solitary  instance.  If  we  contrast  the  narra- 
tive with  those  of  St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew,  both  in  its 
general  characteristics  and  in  its  details,  we  shall  note  cer- 
tain marked  differences.  Both  these  other  Gospels,  and 
especially  St.  Matthew's,  from  time  to  time  upset  the 
chronological  order  of  St.  Mark,  and  in  doing  so  spoil  the 
coherency  of  the  narrative.  It  is  quite  impossible  out  of 
these  Gospels  to  construct  the  same  succession  of  events. 
And  if  we  compare  the  separate  narratives  as  they  appear 
in  these  later  Gospels  with  those  in  St.  Mark,  we  shall  see 
how  much  they  have  lost  in  picturesqueness,  in  simplicity, 
and  in  a  sort  of  photographic  accuracy.  St.  Mark  seems 
to  have  written  down  the  stories  as  they  appeared  to  one 
who  had  seen  them.  Just  the  touches  which  convey  that 
impression  are  often  omitted  in  the  other  Gospels.  He  tells 
us  how  the  men  that  bore  the  paralytic  could  not  come  nigh 
Jesus  for  the  crowd,  and  how  they  broke  up  the  roof.  He 
tells  us  how  Jesus  spake  to  His  disciples  that  a  little  boat 


12  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

should  wait  on  Him.  He  gives  that  detailed  and  vivid 
picture  of  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood.  He  ends  the 
story  of  Jairus'  daughter  with  the  command  that  something 
should  be  given  her  to  eat.  He  tells  us  of  the  green  grass, 
and  the  men  sitting  down  by  companies  at  the  feeding  of 
the  multitude.  We  need  not  multiply  instances.  There 
are  few  stories  in  St.  Mark  which  do  not  give  one  a  vivid 
picture  of  the  event,  and  they  are  generally  spoiled  in 
St.  Matthew. 

It  is,  however,  maintained  that  much  of  what  is  said 
about  our  Lord  in  St.  Mark  is  so  improbable  as  to  be  in- 
consistent with  a  Petrine  origin.  The  theory  put  forward 
as  to  the  purpose  of  the  parables,  the  story  of  the  mission 
of  the  Twelve,  the  injunction  of  silence  as  to  miracles  —  all 
these,  it  is  maintained,  cannot  be  historical.  On  most  of 
these  points  I  believe  that  St.  Mark  is  right  and  the  critics 
are  wrong,  and  that  will  appear  as  our  history  proceeds.^ 
There  is,  however,  one  difficulty  to  which  I  must  refer, 
which  seems  to  me  to  be  a  very  real  one  —  namely,  the 
date  of  the  Last  Supper.  According  to  St.  Mark  (and  the 
other  Synoptists)  the  Last  Supper  was  a  Passover.  Accord- 
ing to  St.  John  it  was  a  day  earlier.  Now  it  is  extraordi- 
narily difficult  to  believe  that  the  arrest,  the  trial,  and  the 
crucifixion  of  our  Lord  could  have  taken  place  on  the  Pass- 
over, while  the  indecent  hurry  with  which  all  the  proceed- 
ings were  conducted  can  be  well  explained  if  the  desire  was 
to  get  it  over  before  the  Passover  began.  The  date  of  the 
Last  Supper  given  by  St.  Mark  is,  therefore,  not  probable. 
But  even  if  this  be  so,  I  do  not  feel  that  it  need  conffict 
with  the  belief  that  the  Gospel  is  based  on  Petrine  sources. 
It  is  not  in  the  least  unlikely  that,  whatever  were  the  real 
facts,  the  Apostolic  Church  should  quite  early  have  learnt  to 
think  of  the  Last  Supper  as  a  Passover,  and  this  may  have 
influenced  St.  Mark's  narrative.  It  is  exactly  the  point  on 
which  tradition  might  quite  easily  get  confused. 

I  beheve,  then,  that  tradition  is  right  in  telling  us  that 
this  Gospel  is  the  work  of  St.  Mark,  recording  the  teaching 
of  St.  Peter.  But  was  that  St.  Mark's  only  source?  Can 
we  be  certain  that  everything  in  the  Gospel  has  the  au- 

^  See  below,  chapter  VII.,   7. 


THE  SOURCES  OF  ST.   MARK  13 

thority  of  St.  Peter?  I  think  that  there  are  fairly  good  rea- 
sons for  thinking  that  there  is  information  in  St.  Mark  de- 
rived from  other  sources.  Turn  to  the  narrative  of  the 
feeding  of  the  four  thousand.  I  cannot  but  beheve  that 
this  is  a  doublet  of  the  feeding  of  the  five  thousand  —  that 
is,  it  is  another  account  of  the  same  event.  There  is  a  re- 
markable similarity  between  the  two  stories,  but  that  of 
the  five  thousand  has  all  the  vividness  which  characterizes 
a  Marcan  narrative,  while  that  of  the  four  thousand  is  sin- 
gularly bald.  Apart  from  this  the  two  stories  (except  for  the 
numbers)  are  almost  identical.  Then  we  notice  that  the  sec- 
ond story  is  narrated  as  if  there  had  been  no  similar  event 
previous  to  it;  and  that  while  the  first  story  takes  its 
proper  place  in  the  narrative,  the  second  story  seems  quite 
unconnected  with  what  precedes  it.  If,  then,  as  is  probable, 
these  two  stories  are  doublets,  the  same  will  be  true  of  the 
later  reference  to  them,  dealing  specifically  with  each  event. 
This  would  have  arisen  as  a  conflation  of  the  two  sources. 

Now,  if  these  two  narratives  are  different  accounts  of  the 
same  event,  there  are  three  deductions  which  we  can  make. 
The  first  is,  as  on  other  grounds  would  be  likely,  that  St. 
Mark  has  collected  information  from  more  than  one  source. 
The  second  is  even  more  important.  Here  we  have 
two  independent  accounts  of  the  same  event,  and  they 
differ  from  one  another  as  independent  accounts  would, 
particularly  as  regards  the  numbers,  on  which  point  ac- 
curacy and  agreement  is  rarely  attainable.  But  essentially 
they  tell  us  exactly  the  same  story.  The  deduction  that 
I  would  make  from  this  is  that  traditions  so  corroborated 
have  a  reasonable  right  to  be  considered  trustworthy.  The 
third  point  that  I  would  make  is  that  whatever  actually 
happened  the  tradition  belongs  to  the  oldest  Gospel  strata. 
The  feeding  of  the  multitude  is  found  in  the  oldest  Gospel, 
and  the  author  of  that  Gospel  gives  us  two  independent 
accounts  of  it. 

Now,  if  this  be  the  case,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
there  may  be  other  passages  in  St.  Mark  which  do  not  come 
from  St.  Peter,  and  some  corroboration  has  been  found  for 
this.  In  some  places  it  is  thought  there  are  signs  of  ill- 
joining  in  the  narrative,  as  if  a  certain  number  of  incidents 


14  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

had  been  inserted  from  other  sources.  One  of  them  may, 
perhaps,  be  the  eschatological  discourse  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter.  I  do  not  think  we  can  go  with  any  confidence  much 
further  than  that.  You  will  find  in  some  books  an  elaborate 
arrangement  of  sources.  That  is,  I  think,  for  the  most  part 
mere  guesswork,  based  on  the  author's  preconceived  notions 
of  what  the  narrative  should  be.  The  utmost  we  can 
reasonably  say  is  that  we  cannot  in  all  cases  feel  certain 
that  what  is  contained  in  St.  Mark  comes  from  St.  Peter. 
There  were  other  sources,  oral  or  written,  from  which  some 
matter  is  incorporated. 

The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  was  thus  written  by  John  Mark, 
the  companion  first  of  St.  Paul,  then  of  St.  Peter.  He  was 
a  member  in  early  days  of  the  Jerusalem  Church.  Although 
probably  not  himself  a  direct  disciple  of  our  Lord,  he  was 
intimately  associated  with  those  who  had  been.  He  had 
ample  opportunities  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Hfe  of  Jesus  in  their  earliest  form,  and  his 
narrative,  both  by  its  intelligent  account  of  the  progress  of 
events  and  by  the  life-like  pictures  that  it  gives,  seems  to 
imply  that  it  is  based  on  such  traditions.  The  fact  that  it  is 
the  principal  narrative  source,  both  of  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke,  shows  that  in  the  opinion  of  those  writers  it  was 
by  far  the  best  available  account  of  our  Lord's  life. 

As  to  its  date  I  am  inclined,  on  the  whole,  to  accept 
that  given  us  by  Irenaeus,  that  it  was  written  after  the 
deaths  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  —  that  is,  after  a.d.  64. 
I  would  add,  not  very  long  afterwards.  It  must,  however, 
be  recognized  that  there  are  no  very  strong  reasons  against 
a  considerably  earlier  date.  It  might  quite  easily  have 
been  writte;;i  before  a.d.  60.  Some  difficulty  has  been  felt 
about  the  apocalyptic  passage  in  the  thirteenth  chapter. 
It  has  been  maintained  that  it  is  an  independent  docu- 
ment, owing  little  in  its  present  form  to  the  words  of  our 
Lord,  but  composed  under  the  influence  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  The  whole  question  of  the  apocalyptic  teaching 
will  demand  treatment  in  detail  later,  but  I  hardly  think 
that  in  any  case  it  requires  so  late  a  date.  No  doubt  its 
language  may  have  been  coloured  by  the  troubled  times 
which  prevailed  for  many  years  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 


THE  DISCOURSES  15 

which  to  many  seemed  to  be  the  "Woes  of  the  Messiah," 
the  necessary  prelude,  according  to  current  Jewish  expec- 
tation, of  the  final  revelation  of  the  Son  of  Man;  but  there 
is  Uttle  sign  of  its  being  influenced  by  the  specific  events 
of  that  period.  It  presents  many  features  in  common  with 
the  general  apocalyptic  language  of  the  time,  and  there  is 
no  reason  why  we  should  not  look  upon  it  as  an  instance 
of  teaching  given  by  our  Lord  in  such  current  apocalyptic 
language.  Tradition  may  have  coloured  the  record  a  little, 
but  in  the  main  there  seems  no  reason  why  we  should  not 
accept  it  as  authentic. 

Ill 

We  come  next  to  the  document  often  called  "Q,"  which 
I  propose  to  call  The  Discourses.  This  is  a  hypothetical 
document,  but  it  must  have  existed  in  some  form  or  other. 
Let  us  first  consider  the  reason  for  requiring  its  existence. 
It  is  that  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  there  is  still,  when 
we  have  eliminated  St.  Mark,  a  considerable  amount  of 
common  matter.  This  is  found  to  consist  almost  entirely 
of  teaching.  If  a  narrative  occurs,  it  is  as  an  occasion  for 
teaching.  The  sayings  of  our  Lord  contained  in  this  com- 
mon matter  are  generally  quite  short,  often  of  an  epigram- 
matic or  oracular  character;  often,  too,  although  not  al- 
ways, the  resemblance  between  the  two  reports  is  very 
close;  sometimes  they  are  almost  verbally  identical.  More- 
over, the  sayings  occur  to  a  large  extent  in  the  same  order. 
All  these  facts  seem  to  point  to  a  common  written  source. 

I  am  now  going  to  ask  you  to  turn  to  another  statement 
given  us  by  that  Papias  to  whom  I  have  already  referred. 
He  tells  us  that  "Matthew  composed  the  Logia'^  in  the 
Aramaic  language,  and  each  one  interpreted  them  as  he 
would. "^  These  words  have  led  to  much  discussion,  and  it 
is  difiicult  to  find  any  agreement  as  to  their  meaning.  We 
may,  to  begin  with,  take  it  as  reasonably  certain  that  this 

^  The  Greek  word  "Logia"  means  "oracles,"  or  perhaps  short  oracular 
sa3dngs.     It  was  technically  used  to  mean  "the  Scriptures." 

^  Eus.,  Hist.  Eccl.,  'in.,  39,  16.  The  Greek  has  "in  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage," but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  what  is  meant  is  Aramaic,  the 
popular  language  of  Palestine  at  the  time  of  our  Lord. 


i6  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

tradition  (whatever  may  have  been  the  opinion  of  Papias) 
could  not  refer  to  oilr  St.  Matthew.  That  Gospel  was  not 
written  in  Hebrew  or  Aramaic,  but  in  Greek,  and  was  put 
together  out  of  more  than  one  Greek  document.  There  is 
a  good  deal  of  hesitation  among  scholars  in  adopting  any 
positive  theory,  but  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  there  is 
considerable  probability  that  this  tradition  refers  to  the 
collection  of  "discourses"  or  "oracles"  of  the  Lord  (that 
expression  would  be  a  very  suitable  one)  which  was  used 
by  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke.  That  hypothesis  will  ex- 
plain a  good  many  facts.  It  will  explain  how  St.  Mat- 
thew's Gospel  obtained  its  name.  If  there  was  more  than 
one  translation  of  these  discourses  in  existence  (as  Papias 
suggests),  it  will  explain  why,  in  some  cases,  the  verses  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  are  almost  identical,  and  in 
some  they  differ  widely.  Although,  for  some  reason  or 
other,  this  identification  of  the  common  source  of  the  two 
Gospels  with  the  Logia  or  oracles  of  St.  Matthew  is  not  as 
popular  as  it  was,  I  must  confess  that  it  appears  to  me  to 
be  the  most  probable  hypothesis. 

What  were  the  contents  of  this  book?  If  you  study  the 
many  writers  who  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  Synoptic 
problem,  you  will  find  a  good  deal  of  speculation  on  this 
subject.  Some  have  included  in  it  much  that  appears  in 
only  one  Gospel,  and  have  even  made  it  a  source  of  St. 
Mark.  Others,  like  Wellhausen,  depreciate  it,  and  consider 
that  it  was  largely  made  up  out  of  St.  Mark.  These  are  all 
mere  guesses.  All  we  can  say  is  that  in  all  probability  it 
contained  most,  if  not  all,  the  passages  common  to  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  which  are  not  in  St.  Mark.  It  is, 
of  course,  possible  that  there  were  two  common  sources,  or 
that  some  common  passages  were  derived  directly  from  oral 
tradition.  But  it  is  a  wise  rule  in  criticism  that  the  sim- 
plest and  least  complicated  solution  is  also  the  most  prob- 
able. On  the  other  hand,  it  is  fairly  certain  that  in  some 
cases  it  contained  the  same  discourse  or  narrative  which  we 
have  in  St.  Mark,  in  a  somewhat  different  form;  it  is  pos- 
sible, also,  that  it  contained  some  things  which  St.  Matthew 
has  given  us,  but  not  St.  Luke;  but  this  is  less  certain. 
Take,  for  example,  the  comparison  of  the  Old  and  New  Law 


THE  DISCOURSES  AND   ST.   MARK  17 

at  the  beginning  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount.  It  might 
quite  well  be  argued  that  this  is  just  what  St.  Luke  might 
omit  as  being  of  little  interest  to  Gentile  readers.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  also  possible  to  argue  that  it  is  just  what 
St.  Matthew  might  have  put  together  from  different  sources 
as  eminently  useful  for  his  Jewish  Christian  readers.  That 
instance  will  show  us  the  uncertainty  of  all  such  specula- 
tions. It  is  better  to  keep  to  what  has  positive  argument 
in  its  support.  There  must  have  been  a  common  source  for 
the  matter  common  to  the  first  and  third  Gospels  and  those 
alone:  there  is  a  strong  probability  that  this  was  a  collec- 
tion of  the  discourses  of  our  Lord,  and  it  may  have  been 
that  collection  said  to  have  been  made  by  St.  Matthew.^ 

There  is  a  further  point  of  much  interest.  This  source 
contained,  as  we  have  said,  matter  also  found  in  St.  Mark. 
We  know  this  by  the  occurrence  of  what  are  called  doub- 
lets. That  is  to  say,  the  same  passage  is  found  twice  in  one 
Gospel,  because  it  has  been  derived  from  two  different 
sources.  A  good  example  is  our  Lord's  teaching  about  di- 
vorce. This  occurs  once  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
where  it  seems  to  resemble  more  closely  the  account  in  St. 
Luke;^  once  later  in  St.  Matthew,  where  it  is  clearly  taken 
from  St.  Mark.^  Sometimes  St.  Luke  gives  a  story  in  one 
form,  St.  Mark  in  another,  and  St.  Matthew  seems  to  have 
combined  the  two.  For  example,  take  the  discourse  on 
casting  out  devils  in  the  name  of  Beelzebub."*  If  you  will 
compare  the  version  in  St.  Mark  with  that  in  St.  Luke,  you 
will  notice  considerable  differences,  and  you  will  see  that 
the  two  versions  are  combined  in  St.  Matthew.  Or  again, 
St.  Mark  gives  us  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed,  St. 
Luke  gives  it  in  a  different  version  and  in  a  different  con- 
text with  the  parable  of  the  leaven  attached.  St.  Matthew 
follows  the  arrangement  of  St.  Mark,  adds  the  parable  of 
the  leaven,  and  in  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed  shows  the 

^  The  best  book  on  The  Discourses  or  Login  is  Harnack,  Spriiche  und 
Reden  Jesu  (Leipzig,  1907).  There  is  an  English  translation  with  the  title 
The  Sayings  of  Jesus  (Williams  and  Norgate). 

2  Mt.  V.  31,  32;    cf.  Lk.  xvi.  18. 

2  Mt.  xix.  3-9;   cf.  Mk.  X.  2-12. 

*  Mt.  xii.  22-32,  Mk.  iii.  22-30,  Lk.  xi.  14-23. 


i8  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

influence  of  both  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke.^  The  deduction 
that  we  make  is  that  it  was  contained  both  in  The  Dis- 
courses and  in  St.  Mark,  and  that  there  was  considerable 
verbal  variation  between  the  two  reports  of  the  parable. 

An  important  question,  therefore,  arises.  Did  St.  Mark 
use  The  Discourses,  or  The  Discourses  St.  Mark,  or  do  they 
give  independent  accounts  of  the  same  tradition?  Well- 
hausen  thinks  that  The  Discourses  were  dependent  on  St. 
Mark,  but  few,  I  think,  follow  him.  It  is  more  common 
to  hold  that  St.  Mark  used  The  Discourses.  My  own  opin- 
ion is  that  he  did  not.  If  he  had  had  it  before  him,  and 
used  it  at  all,  he  would  probably  have  used  much  more.  I 
cannot  think  that  he  would  have  left  out  the  parable  of  the 
leaven.  Moreover,  when  he  does  give  us  anything  which  is 
also  found  in  The  Discourses,  there  are  considerable  varia- 
tions in  his  report.  My  own  behef  is  that  he  gives  an  in- 
dependent report  of  the  same  traditions. 

If  that  be  so,  we  have  further  instances  of  what  we  no- 
ticed in  respect  to  the  feeding  of  the  multitude.  We  have 
independent  reports  of  the  same  traditions,  and  we  are  able 
to  compare  them.  They  vary  as  reports  which  are  inde- 
pendent must  do;  but  they  both  give  us  the  same  teach- 
ing, and  there  is  nothing  which  would  compel  us  to  think 
the  tradition  erroneous.  There  are  occasional  discrepancies. 
It  would  be  unnatural  if  there  were  not;  but  substantially 
both  represent  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  in  the  same  way. 
Now,  if  this  be  so  where  we  can  compare  traditions,  we 
have  a  reasonable  amount  of  certainty  that  it  is  also  true 
in  other  instances  where  we  have  not  the  opportunity  of 
comparing  them. 

We  have,  then,  in  The  Discourses  an  early  account  of 
our  Lord's  teaching  which,  up  to  a  certain  point,  we  can 
reconstruct  with  a  fair  measure  of  certainty.  It  contained 
much  information  of  the  greatest  importance.  It  certainly 
contained  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  although  how  far  that  was  collected  in  one  dis- 
course must  be  uncertain.  It  contained  a  long  section 
about  John  the  Baptist.  It  contained  some  of  the  parables 
of  the  kingdom.     It  contained  some  of  our  Lord's  most 

^  Mt.  xiii.  31-33,  Mk.  iv.  30-32,  Lk.  xiii.  18-21. 


THE   GOSPEL   OF   ST.   LUKE  ig 

striking  utterances.  It  did  not  contain  an  account  of  the 
Passion.  We  should  be  glad  to  have  more  accurate  infor- 
mation than  we  possess  of  its  date.  That  we  unfortunately 
cannot  obtain.  It  must  have  been  earlier  than  St.  Matthew 
or  St.  Luke.  Sir  William  Ramsay  has  maintained  that  the 
absence  of  any  reference  to  the  Passion  implied  that  it  was 
composed  in  the  lifetime  of  our  Lord.  But  this  is  a  pre- 
carious argument.  If  the  story  of  the  Passion  was  part  of 
the  ordinary  Christian  teaching  (as  seems  probable),  then 
a  collection  of  discourses  might  naturally  omit  it.  To 
many  of  us  The  Discourses  have  all  the  marks  of  being  a 
very  primitive  document,  but  others  consider  that  it  bears 
marks  of  later  dogmatic  influence,  and  the  arguments  on 
either  side  are  too  subjective  for  us  to  place  much  reliance 
on  them.  We  must  be  content  to  say  that  it  was  an  early 
record  of  our  Lord's  teaching.    That  must  suffice. 

IV 

We  come  next  to  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  I  think  I  may  take- 
certain  things  as  proved  about  it.  I  see  no  reason  for 
doubting  the  arguments  by  which  Sir  John  Hawkins  here 
and  Professor  von  Harnack  in  Germany  —  to  mention  only 
the  two  most  distinguished  of  recent  writers  who  have 
discussed  the  question  —  have  convinced  most  of  us  that 
the  third  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written 
by  St.  Luke,  the  companion  of  St.  Paul,  and  that,  there- 
fore, we  are  dealing,  not  with  an  anonymous  book,  but  with 
one  about  whose  author  we  have  considerable  knowledge.^ 

As  to  its  date  some  uncertainty  must  prevail.  There 
are  really  two  chronological  schemes  possible  with  regard 
to  the  Gospels.  The  one  would  put  the  composition  of 
St.  Mark's  Gospel  during  the  life  of  St.  Peter,  probably 
before  the  year  60.  Then  St.  Luke  would  have  been  written 
before  the  year  64,  and  St,  Matthew's  Gospel  somewhere 

^  Horae  Synopticae,  pp.  174-197;  von  Harnack,  Lukas  der  Arzt  (Leip- 
zig, 1906),  translated  under  the  title  Luke  the  Physician  (Williams  and  Nor- 
gate,  1907).  There  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  anything  in  Dr.  Foakes  Jackson's 
and  Dr.  Kirsopp  Lake's  recent  volume,  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol. 
ii.  (Macmillan  and  Co.,  1922),  to  shake  that  conclusion. 

3 


20  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

about  the  year  70.  The  second  scheme  would  place  the 
composition  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  after  the  deaths  of  St. 
Peter  and  St.  Paul  —  that  is,  after  the  year  64  —  and  the 
other  two  Gospels  about  the  year  80.  As  all  these  Gospels 
were  probably  known  to  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  it  is 
not  possible  to  put  any  of  them  much  later  than  that  date. 
My  own  opinion,  on  the  whole,  inclines  to  the  later  date, 
but  there  are  no  conclusive  arguments  on  either  side.^ 

There  is  one  further  point  that  I  think  I  ought  to  men- 
tion. It  has  been  maintained  with  some  persistency  by  cer- 
tain scholars  that  St.  Luke  was  acquainted  with  the  writ- 
ings of  Josephus.  That  would  necessarily  imply  a  still  later 
date.  The  Jewish  Wars  was  published  not  much  before  the 
year  79,  the  Antiquities  about  the  year  94.  I  must  own 
that  this  argument  has  never  appealed  to  me,  mainly  be- 
cause of  the  fact  that  St.  Luke's  statements  are  often  in- 
consistent with  those  of  Josephus.  It  demands,  in  fact,  an 
almost  incredible  carelessness  on  the  part  of  St.  Luke,  and 
that  is  not  justified  by  what  we  know  of  his  writings  other- 
wise. I  think  it  would  be  much  more  correct  to  argue  that 
the  reason  why  St.  Luke  has  probably  made  some  mistakes 
in  secular  history  is  that  the  works  of  Josephus  had  not  yet 
been  published.  If  they  had  been,  he  would  have  been 
much  better  able  to  correlate  the  Evangelical  history  with 
the  circumstances  of  the  time.^ 

I  must,  I  think,  allude  also  to  the  ingenious  theory  put 
forward  recently  by  Dr.  Streeter.  He  suggests  that  St. 
Luke  wrote  a  first  edition  of  his  Gospel,  probably  during 
the  period  when   St.   Paul  was  in   captivity  in   Caesarea. 

^  The  statement  that  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  was  acquainted 
with  the  Synoptists  is  said  by  Professor  Schmiedel  {Encyclopaedia  Biblica, 
II.,  2,540)  to  need  no  proof.  The  implications  of  this  hardly  seem  to  be 
realized.  The  fourth  Gospel  can  with  difficulty  be  put  later  than  a.d.  100. 
And  it  implies  that  the  other  three  Gospels  must  be  earlier.  This  rules 
out  as  impossible  such  a  date  as  a.d.  115  suggested  as  possible  for  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  and  the  third  Gospel  by  Dr.  Kirsopp  Lake  and  Dr.  Foakes 
Jackson    {Beginnings   of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.,  p.  358). 

^  The  latest  statement  of  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  use  of  Josephus 
by  St.  Luke  is  contained  in  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  355— 
358.  To  me  the  instances  given  prove  that  St.  Luke  had  not  seen 
Josephus's  works. 


ST.  LUKE  AS  AN  HISTORIAN  21 

Then,  at  a  later  date,  no  doubt  in  Rome,  he  came  across 
St.  Mark's  Gospel  and  combined  it  with  the  work  he  had 
already  written,  pubhshing  the  enlarged  Gospel  about  the 
year  80.  In  the  same  way  he  wrote  the  travel  diary  prob- 
ably before  the  death  of  St.  Paul,  and  then,  at  a  later  date, 
produced  the  completed  Acts.  The  point  in  which  this 
theory  differs  from  some  others  is  that  it  recognizes  the 
unity  of  style  which  runs  through  the  two  works,  a  recogni- 
tion which  we  do  not  always  find  among  advocates  of  par- 
tition theories,  and  that  it  accounts  fairly  well  both  for  the  facts 
which  imply  an  early  and  those  which  imply  a  later  date.^ 
However,  to  confine  ourselves  to  what  we  may  consider 
certain:  we  have  in  these  books  historical  works  written 
by  an  educated  Greek,  or  Greek-speaking  Jew,  who  mod- 
elled his  compositions  on  Greek  literary  work.  He  has  paid 
attention  to  his  sources.  There  were  many  others,  he  tells 
us,  who  had  written  narratives  about  the  life  and  teaching 
of  Jesus.  He  makes  no  claim  to  be  an  eyewitness,  but  he 
does  claim  to  have  received  his  information  from  those 
"who  from  the  beginning  were  eyewitnesses  and  ministers 
of  the  word."  Now  we  know  that  he  was  justified  in  this 
statement.  He  had  had  every  opportunity  of  collecting 
information.  After  travelling  with  St.  Paul,  he  had  in  his 
company  visited  Jerusalem,  where  he  would  be  able  to 
collect  all  the  traditions,  written  and  oral,  of  the  early 
Christian  community.  He  had  probably  been  there  or 
at  Caesarea  during  the  whole  period  of  St.  Paul's  imprison- 
ment. He  had  then  travelled  with  him  to  Rome,  where  he 
must  have  come  in  contact  with  other  Christians  —  very 
probably  with  both  St.  Peter  and  St.  Mark.  He  had  had, 
therefore,  abundant  opportunites  of  acquiring  information. 
He  also  claims  to  have  treated  all  things  accurately  from 
the  first.     When  we  come  to  examine  his  history,  we  find 

^  Dr.  Streeter's  theory  may  be  found  in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  vol.  xx., 
No.  I,  October,  192 1,  pp.  103-112,  "P>esh  Light  on  the  Synoptic  Problem." 
I  do  not  think  that  in  the  form  in  which  he  has  stated  it  it  is  correct,  as  there 
is  not  suflicient  evidence  to  justify  us  in  assuming  two  editions;  but  it  has, 
I  believe,  this  amount  of  truth  —  St.  Luke  had  probably  collected  much 
material  and  planned  his  work  before  he  came  in  contact  with  St.  Mark's 
Gospel,  which  he  would  not  do  until  he  reached  Rome. 


22  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

that  he  has  done  his  best  to  settle  the  chronology  (perhaps 
not  quite  successfully) ;  he  has  arranged  the  information 
which  he  has  collected  from  several  independent  sources,  as 
far  as  he  could,  in  chronological  order,  and  he  has  formed  a 
fairly  clear  idea  of  the  course  of  events.  In  the  Acts,  in 
particular,  he  traces  with  considerable  skill  the  steps  by 
which  the  Christian  Church  developed  and  expanded,  and 
thus  suggests  a  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven.  He  correlates  his  history  to  some  extent  with 
contemporary  events  in  secular  history;  and  he  shows  con- 
siderable interest  in  the  civic  organization  of  the  provinces 
and  cities  that  he  describes.  On  the  whole,  he  seems  to 
represent  a  high  type  of  historian. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  study  of  his  sources.  He  made  use 
of  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  and  it  is  interesting  to  notice  the 
manner  in  which  he  treats  it,  as  we  shall  find  that  St. 
Matthew's  method  is  different.  In  the  first  place  he  inserts 
it  into  his  narrative  in  three  considerable  sections.^  Then, 
secondly,  St.  Luke  omits  a  very  considerable  amount  of 
St.  Mark,  in  particular  the  whole  of  a  long  section  begin- 
ning at  chapter  vi.  45,  and  extending  to  chapter  viii.  27. 
It  used  to  be  assumed  (as  we  said  above)  that  the  reason 
of  this  was  that  St.  Luke  had  before  him  an  earlier  edition 
of  St.  Mark  which  was  without  this  section.  Now  it  is  al- 
most universally  agreed  that  he  omits  what  he  does  omit 
because  he  wishes  to  economize  space,  and  because  most  of 
the  incidents  in  this  section  have  parallels  elsewhere  in  his 
Gospel.  Then,  thirdly,  when  the  same  event  was  contained 
in  some  other  source,  he  seems  to  prefer  that  source  to  St. 
Mark.  He  gives  the  parable  of  the  mustard  seed,  the  dis- 
course on  casting  out  devils  in  the  name  of  Beelzebub,  and 
our  Lord's  teaching  on  divorce,  in  a  form  taken  from  The 
Discourses.  He  gives  quite  a  different  form  of  the  story 
about  the  woman  who  washed  our  Lord's  feet,  and  omits 
the  story  in  St.  Mark.  He  has  a  different  account  of  the 
visit  to  Nazareth,  and  the  calling  of  the  first  apostles,  and 
of  various  other  events.     Fourthly,  when  St.  Mark  is  his 

^  One  of  these  extends  from  iv.  31  to  vi.  19,  the  second  from  viii.  i  to 
ix.  51,  the  third  from  xviii.  15  to  the  end  of  the  Gospel,  with  much  addi- 
tional information  from  other  sources. 


SOURCES  OF  ST.  LUKE  23 

source,  he  generally  reproduces  it  with  considerable  accu- 
racy, but  tries  to  represent  the  circumstances  in  which  the 
event  occurred.  For  instance,  he  adds  a  short  preface  to 
the  story  of  heahng  the  paralytic  man,  explaining  that  there 
were  Pharisees  and  Doctors  of  the  Law  present.  This  is 
derived  from  information  contained  in  the  story,  but  is 
somewhat  ampHfied  by  the  statement  that  these  persons 
had  come  from  Jerusalem,  a  point  which  occurs  in  St.  Mark 
in  later  stories  only  and  is  probably  here  inaccurate.^  Then, 
lastly,  I  would  ask  you  to  notice  that  although  St.  Luke 
had  a  large  amount  of  information  about  Jesus  derived  from 
several  sources,  he  does  not  appear  to  have  had  anything 
Hke  a  consecutive  history  except  St.  Mark.  If  there  were 
other  consecutive  histories,  he  certainly  preferred  St.  Mark, 
and  that  Gospel  provides  the  main  part  of  his  narrative. 

The  second  source  that  he  had  was  the  collection  of  The 
Discourses  of  our  Lord.  These  he  treats  in  a  somewhat 
different  way  from  St.  Matthew.  There  they  are  collected 
together  in  somewhat  lengthy  discourses,  and  combined 
with  matter  of  a  similar  character  obtained  from  St.  Mark 
or  elsewhere.  In  St.  Luke  we  have  them  given  much  more 
often  in  a  series  of  isolated  sayings,  probably  as  they  oc- 
curred in  the  original.  These  sayings  are  found  mainly  in 
three  sections.^ 

But  there  is  still  much  information  which  does  not  come 
from  either  of  these  sources.  Whence  was  it  derived? 
Now,  as  regards  this,  we  have  no  documentary  assistance. 
Any  conclusion  must  be  purely  conjectural.  It  is  interest- 
ing, therefore,  to  notice  how  many  writers  first  reconstruct 
their  sources  according  to  their  own  imaginations,  and 
then  argue  from  them  as  if  they  really  existed.  We  can- 
not, of  course,  tell  whether  most  of  this  information  comes 

^  Compare  Lk.  v.  17-26  with  Mk.  ii.  1-12  and  iii.  22. 

^  Chapters  iii.-iv.  13;  vi.  20-vii.  35;  ix.  57-xvii.  33;  in  the  last  section 
mixed  up  with  a  good  deal  of  matter  probably  from  other  sources.  As  Dr. 
Streeter  points  out,  the  matter  from  The  Discourses  (Q)  is  generally  com- 
bined with  that  from  other  sources,  while  that  from  St.  Mark  appears  for 
the  most  part  in  large  blocks.  This  suggests,  as  he  points  out,  that  the 
combination  of  Q  with  other  sources  had  taken  place  at  an  earlier  stage 
than  the  combination  with  St.  Mark. 


24  THE  CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

from  one  source  or  from  several,  or  how  far  any  of  it  may 
have  been  derived  from  oral  traditions.  What  we  do  know 
is  that  St.  Luke  was  at  Jerusalem  and  at  Caesarea  about 
A.D.  60,  that  he  was  likely  to  meet  people  who  had  them- 
selves some  knowledge  of  the  events  described,  and  that 
there  were,  as  he  tells  us,  many  collections  about  our 
Lord's  life.  It  is  probable  that  he  had  a  third  written 
source,  and  that  perhaps  he  collected  together  some  oral 
tradition  himself.  Some  of  the  additional  episodes  that  he 
records,  or  details  that  he  has  added,  do  not  compare 
favourably  with  St.  Mark,  and  may  have  come  from  tradi- 
tion, but  a  good  deal  of  his  special  material  seems  to  be 
excellent.  I  should  like  you,  however,  to  remember  how 
precarious  are  judgments  of  this  sort,  purely  subjective  as 
they  are.^ 

It  has,  however,  been  noticed  that  there  are  a  considerable 
number  of  episodes  peculiar  to  St.  Luke  which  have  a  defi- 
nite character  of  their  own:  the  story  of  the  Good  Samari- 
tan, of  the  Rich  Fool,  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  of  the  Lost  Piece 
of  Silver,  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Laza- 
rus, of  the  Ten  Lepers,  of  the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican,  of 
Zaccheus,  of  the  Penitent  Thief.  All  these  emphasize  Di- 
vine Mercy  and  Forgiveness,  Salvation  through  the  Gospel 
and  its  extension  to  those  outside  the  circle  of  the  privi- 
leged. Their  motto  is:  "The  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek 
and  to  save  that  which  is  lost."  We  may  conjecture  that 
these  stories  come  from  a  document  put  together  by  some- 
one to  whom  Christianity  appealed  especially  as  a  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation.  It  may,  indeed,  quite  possibly  be 
St.  Luke  himself  that  made  the  selection.  The  Gospel 
shows  signs  throughout  that  the  material  was  carefully 
chosen.  St.  Luke  took  it  from  the  books  which  were  before 
him  in  such  a  way  as  to  bring  out  his  conception  of  what 
Christianity  meant. 

We  are  concerned  with  St.  Luke's  historical  accuracy. 
We  know  in  two  cases  a  good  deal  about  the  sources  that 
he  made  use  of.     We  know  that  they  were  good  sources. 

^  The  greater  amount  of  this  special  information  comes  in  the  section 
ix.  51-xviii.  14,  but  mixed  up  with  a  good  deal  of  matter  apparently  from 
The  Discourses. 


THE   GOSPEL  OF  ST.  MATTHEW  25 

We  know  that  he  used  them  well  and  with  historical  insight. 
On  no  point  can  we  detect  any  serious  discrepancy.  We 
may  conjecture,  as  regards  other  sources,  that  he  would  use 
them  in  the  same  way,  and  there  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  neglect  any  information  because  it  occurs  only  in 
this  Gospel.^ 

V 

Of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  we  know  nothing  except  what 
we  learn  from  itself.  It  probably  obtained  its  name  from 
the  collection  of  The  Discourses,  which  was  one  of  its  chief 
sources,  and  was,  perhaps,  correctly  ascribed  to  St.  Mat- 
thew; perhaps,  also,  from  the  fact  that  the  tradition  pre- 
served by  Papias  was  supposed  to  refer  to  it.  That  tradi- 
tion certainly  does  not  apply  to  the  first  Gospel,  which 
was  not  written  in  Aramaic,  but  in  Greek,  and  is  not 
the  work  of  an  eyewitness.  As  to  its  date,  it  must  be  later 
than  St.  Mark  and  earlier  than  St.  John,  and  so  nearly  con- 
temporary with  St.  Luke  that  probably  neither  writer  had 
had  the  opportunity  of  seeing  the  work  of  the  other.  It 
must,  moreover,  have  been  composed  under  the  influence 
of  the  fall  of  the  Jewish  state,  and  of  the  apocalyptic  move- 
ment that  accompanied  it.  It  might  have  been  written 
during  the  disturbances  which  preceded  the  destruction  of 
the  city,  but  was  more  probably,  perhaps,  produced  shortly 
after  that  event.  It  was  the  work  of  a  Jewish  Christian  or, 
at  any  rate,  of  one  closely  interested  in  the  relation  of 
Christianity  to  Judaism.  While  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke 
wrote  for  Gentile  readers,  St.  Matthew  wrote  for  those  who 
were  in  close  contact  with  the  Jewish  question.  He  lays 
great  stress  on  the  argument  from  prophecy.  He  dwells  on 
the  contrast  between  the  old  dispensation  and  the  new.    He 

1  There  are  some  interesting  remarks  on  St.  Luke's  use  of  St.  Mark  by 
Dr.  Burkitt  in  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  106-120.  He  con- 
cludes (pp.  116,  117)  that  "in  style  and  treatment  it  is  worthy  of  its  noble 
subject,"  that  "the  sketch  which  it  gives  of  the  Ministry  of  Jesus  is  charac- 
terized by  'general  historical  truth.'"  "Luke  is  not  inventing,  but  simply 
retelling,  without  essential  change,  tales  that  are  to  a  large  extent  founded 
on  the  reminiscences  of  those  who  had  heard  the  Master."  He  notices,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  he  has  to  a  certain  extent  confused  the  chronological 
development  in  combining  different  documents,  and  suggests  that  the  same 
may  have  happened  in  the  Acts. 


26  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

emphasizes,  and  possibly  exaggerates,  the  anti- Jewish 
teaching  of  our  Lord.  He  is  the  determined  enemy  of 
scribe  and  Pharisee.  He  is  also  more  influenced  than  the 
other  Evangelists  by  contemporary  Jewish  thought,  and 
by  apocalyptic  and  eschatological  speculations,  and  this 
influence  may  possibly  have  coloured  to  some  extent  the 
report  of  our  Lord's  words. 

If  we  turn  to  the  structure  of  the  Gospel,  we  notice  a 
marked  contrast  to  that  of  St.  Luke.  Both  aUke  largely  use 
St.  Mark,  but  while  St.  Luke  introduces  the  matter  derived 
from  him  in  certain  large  sections,  St.  Matthew  bases  the 
whole  structure  of  his  Gospel  upon  it,  and  disposes  of  the 
other  matter  that  he  has  obtained  —  mostly  records  of 
teaching  —  in  eight  discourses,  some  of  considerable  length, 
which  he  inserts  at  suitable  places  in  the  narrative,  in 
some  cases  amplifying  a  discourse  already  existing.  It  is, 
I  think,  clear  that  for  the  most  part  these  discourses  have 
been  put  together  by  the  author  from  material  derived  from 
different  sources.  A  further  point  to  notice  is  the  large 
number  of  passages  from  the  Old  Testament,  introduced 
to  carry  out  the  purpose  noted  above  of  showing  how 
prophecy  has  been  fulfilled. 

A  difference  from  St.  Luke  may  also  be  noticed  in  the 
way  in  which  the  sources  are  used.  St.  Luke,  you  will 
remember,  leaves  out  a  considerable  part  of  St.  Mark. 
St.  Matthew  gives  almost  the  whole,  but  whenever  it  is 
possible  shortens  the  narrative,  and  in  doing  so  generally 
omits  all  those  living  touches  which  add  so  much  to  the 
vividness  of  St.  Mark.  It  has  been  maintained  that  he 
does  much  more  than  this,  and  modifies  the  information  he 
receives  in  dogmatic  interests.  The  question  is,  of  course, 
important,  as  it  has  been  used  to  detract  from  the  value  of 
the  Gospel,  and  demands  some  investigation. 

St.  Matthew  was  not  a  mere  copyist.  So  far  as  he  was 
selecting  and  arranging  his  material,  he  was  doing  what  any 
modern  historian  would  do  in  writing  a  life  of  our  Lord, 
designed  to  bring  out  what  he  beHeved  to  be  a  true  account 
of  Him.  Is  there  any  reason  to  think  that  in  doing  this  he 
faked  his  material?  No  doubt  a  modern  critic  of  a  certain 
type,  when  he  sets  himself  to  write  a  life  of  our  Lord,  does 


ST.   MATTHEW'S  USE  OF  ST.   MARK  27 

omit  quite  unscrupulously  everything  which  conflicts  with 
his  conception  of  that  Hfe  without  thinking  it  necessary  to 
give  any  adequate  reason.  He  does  not  scruple  to  alter 
or  modify  it,  and  he  interprets  it  to  suit  the  opinions  he  has 
formed,  often  in  a  way  most  difficult  to  justify.  A  good 
instance  would  be  the  narrative  of  the  healing  of  the  para- 
lytic, where  the  whole  episode  about  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
is  omitted,  because  it  is  held  that  our  Lord  could  not  have 
claimed  to  forgive  sins.  Now  it  is  natural  that  a  modern 
critic  should  suspect  an  ancient  writer  who  was  engaged 
in  composing  the  life  of  our  Lord  of  doing  the  same  thing 
as  he  does  himself,  and  it  is  obvious  that  it  would  be  a 
serious  matter  if  this  is  what  he  did.  Are  there  any  good 
grounds  for  suspecting  it? 

What  do  we  think  an  historian  should  do?  We  do  not 
expect  him  merely  to  copy  his  sources.  We  expect  him  to 
give  us  a  narrative  which  shows  us  what  he  believed 
happened.  We  expect  him  to  select  his  material  intelli- 
gently. He  cannot  give  us  everything.  But  if  he  leaves 
out  material  which  would  seriously  modify  our  impression, 
or  if  he  alters  it  so  as  to  give  us  something  which  represents 
his  material  quite  erroneously,  then  we  should  consider  him 
untrustworthy.  We  know,  too,  that  we  must  not  expect 
something  more  than  human.  There  will  certainly  be 
some  tendency  for  the  opinions  of  the  time  when  the  author 
wrote  to  show  themselves,  and  some  signs  of  his  own  bias. 
That  we  must  expect  and  allow  for,  and  we  shall  find  in  the 
case  before  us  some  instances  of  it.  The  question  is  really 
one  of  degree. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  St.  Matthew  persistently 
exaggerates  the  miraculous,  that  he  holds  a  more  advanced 
view  of  the  Person  of  Christ  than  St.  Mark  and  modifies 
the  narrative  to  suit  it,  and  that  he  omits  or  softens  what 
might  reflect  on  the  character  of  the  disciples.  Now  the 
fundamental  point  is  that  he  shortens  the  narrative  of 
St.  Mark  whenever  he  can,  and  that  leads  to  his  omitting 
all  those  references  to  personal  feelings  and  emotions  which 
are  so  characteristic  of  St.  Mark;  but  any  real  intention  or 
tendency  seems  to  be  taken  away  by  the  fact  that  he  inserts 
as  well  as  omits.    Is  it  likely,  if  the  aim  of  St.  Matthew  had 


28  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

been  to  eliminate  passages  which  reflected  on  the  disciples, 
that  he  would  have  added  the  story  of  St.  Peter's  attempt 
to  walk  on  the  sea  with  the  rebuke,  ''O  thou  of  little  faith, 
wherefore  didst  thou  doubt?"  or  have  added  to  the  story  of 
the  rebuke  of  Peter  after  his  confession,  "Thou  art  a 
stumbling-block"?  Or  if  he  had  wished  to  exaggerate  the 
miraculous  would  he  have  systematically  cut  short  every 
narrative  of  the  miraculous  with  one  or  two  exceptions? 
or  would  it  be  likely  that  of  the  seven  sections  of  St.  Mark 
that  he  omits  there  should  be  four  which  have  reference  to 
the  miraculous?  It  is,  I  think,  possible  to  maintain  that 
there  was  some  tendency,  probably  unconscious,  in  St. 
Matthew  to  omit  expressions  which  might  seem  to  be  over- 
familiar  from  a  sense  of  reverence,  but  that  is  the  utmost 
that  can  be  maintained. 

There  is  one  passage  on  which  greater  stress  has  been 
laid.  We  are  told  in  St.  Mark  that  one  ran  unto  Jesus  and 
asked  Him:  "Good  Master,  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may 
inherit  eternal  life?  And  Jesus  said  unto  him.  Why  callest 
thou  me  good?  there  is  none  good  save  one,  that  is,  God." 
In  St.  Matthew  (but  not  in  St.  Luke)  it  becomes:  "Mas- 
ter, what  good  thing  shall  I  do,  that  I  may  have  eternal 
life?  But  He  said  unto  him:  Why  askest  thou  me  con- 
cerning the  good?  one  is  the  good." 

It  is  maintained  that  the  story  in  St.  Mark  is  quite  in- 
consistent with  a  behef  in  our  Lord's  divinity,  that  St.  Mat- 
thew perceived  this  (although  St.  Luke  did  not),  and  that 
he  has  therefore  changed  it  with  a  dogmatic  purpose.  I 
doubt  whether  any  of  these  statements  are  true.  Jesus  did 
not  mean  to  deny  any  divine  functions,  but  to  correct  a 
thoughtless  use  of  a  word  which  meant  so  much  more  than 
its  colloquial  use  implied.  St.  Matthew  corrected  it,  be- 
cause the  first  part  of  the  dialogue  seemed  to  be  irrelevant 
to  the  rest  of  the  story. 

I  feel  certain  that  this  instance  is  made  to  carry  more 
than  it  can  bear,  and  that  the  attempt  to  find  any  strong 
dogmatic  tendency  in  such  alterations  is  not  successful. 
The  real  question  is  this,  If  we  read  St.  Mark  through,  and 
then  read  St.  Mark  as  edited  by  St.  Matthew,  shall  we  find 
any  real  difference  in  the  presentment  of  Jesus?     And  the 


THE   SOURCES   OF   ST.   MATTHEW  29 

answer  must  be,  I  think,  that  we  cannot.  St.  Matthew 
gives  the  stories  to  a  certain  extent  in  his  own  words.  He 
shortens  them  considerably.  He  occasionally  seems  to 
correct  what  he  considers  blunders.  He  sometimes  adds 
information  from  another  source,  and  some  of  his  narratives 
show  signs  of  conflation,  perhaps,  also,  he  softens  harsh  or 
common  expressions;  but  there  is  no  evidence  for  any 
dogmatic  purpose,  deliberate  or  even  unconscious,  in  the 
alterations  he  makes. 

We  can  in  all  essentials  trust  St.  Matthew's  use  of  St. 
Mark,  and  we  may  assume  that  his  use  of  his  other  sources 
was  similar.  One  of  these  was  The  Discourses.  The 
question  arises  whether  much  in  St.  Matthew  which  is  not 
contained  in  St.  Luke  came  from  The  Discourses.  Was  the 
section,  for  example,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  on  the 
relation  of  the  Old  and  New  Law  in  The  Discourses?  It  is 
extremely  probable  that  it  was.  St.  Luke  has  preserved 
some  few  verses,  and  it  was  natural  that  he  should  omit 
the  subject  as  hardly  interesting  to  his  readers  in  the  same 
way  that  it  was  to  the  Jewish  readers  of  St.  Matthew. 
But  it  might,  of  course,  also  be  argued  that  the  section  had 
been  compiled  by  St.  Matthew  for  that  reason,  and  in  any 
case  it  shows  signs  of  being  a  compilation.  There  is  nothing 
more  than  probabiHty  either  way.  We  may  conjecture, 
but  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  whether  we  possess 
more  of  this  second  source  than  we  can  recover  by  compar- 
ing St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke. 

Of  other  sources  we  have  no  means  of  even  forming  a 
conjecture.  There  are  a  considerable  number  of  parables 
preserved  in  St.  Matthew  alone,  which  are  among  the  most 
interesting  in  the  Gospels.  There  are  some  few  incidents 
which  might  seem  to  have  come  direct  from  a  floating 
popular  tradition.  I  do  not  think,  however,  that  we  are 
justified  in  speaking  of  this  secondary  matter  in  so  dis- 
paraging a  way  as  some  do.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  most  of 
it  of  the  same  stuff  as  the  rest  of  the  Synoptic  tradition. 
St.  Luke  had  other  and  trustworthy  sources  besides  St.  Mark 
and  The  Discourses.  He  tells  us  that  in  his  time  there  were 
many  accounts  of  our  Lord's  Hfe  and  words  in  existence. 
There  is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  St.  Matthew  had  not 


30  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

other  good  sources:  and  it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that 
the  information  that  he  gives  has  come  from  such  a  source 
unless  there  are  obvious  reasons  for  thinking  the  contrary. 

VI 

We  have,  then,  four  primary  sources  for  the  life  of  our 
Lord:  The  Discourses  so  far  as  we  can  reconstruct  that 
document,  St.  Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  Matthew.  We 
may  safely  assume  that  they  all  date  from  the  first  century, 
and  could  not  have  been  written  much,  if  at  all,  later  than 
A.D.  80,  for  they  were  all  used  by  St.  John,  and  that  they 
may  have  been  written  a  good  deal  earlier.  We  have  now 
to  enquire  what  historical  value  is  to  be  attached  to  these 
documents. 

It  has  been  maintained  by  the  German  Old  Testament 
writer  Wellhausen  that  the  three  Gospels  may  be  dis- 
tinguished as  representing  three  successive  stages  in  the 
development  of  Christian  doctrine,  and  especially  of  the 
conception  "the  kingdom  of  God."^  These  opinions  are 
echoed  by  Dr.  Kirsopp  Lake,  who  maintains  that  the  value 
of  the  Gospels  is  to  give  us  an  account  of  the  teaching  of 
the  Apostolic  Church,  and  that  only  very  partially  do  any 
of  them  give  us  information  about  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 
The  simple  eschatological  meaning  of  the  kingdom  is,  it  is 
alleged,  found  in  St.  Mark;  in  St.  Matthew  it  means  the 
Church,  clearly  a  later  development,  and  the  subject-matter 
of  that  Gospel  is  inspired  by  the  organization  of  the  Apos- 
tohc  Church;  in  St.  Luke  the  meaning  is  rather  that  of  the 
unseen  Christian  Hfe,  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  within  you." 

It  must  be  remembered  that  Wellhausen  approaches  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  presuppositions 
which  his  work  on  the  Old  Testament  has  given  him. 
There,  completing  what  former  scholars  had  begun,  he  had 
been  able  to  distinguish  three  or  four  great  strata  of  ma- 
terial in  the  Pentateuch,  which  he  held  (and  his  contention 
has  been  generally  accepted)  to  represent  successive  stages 

^  J.  Wellhausen,  Einleitung  in  die  drei  erslen  Evangelien.  (Zweite  Aus- 
gabe,  Berlin,  191 1).  By  far  the  most  useful  summary  of  criticism  of  this 
type  for  English  readers  is  that  given  by  Montefiore  in  The  Synoptic 
Gospels  (London,  1909). 


WELLHAUSEN  ON  THE   GOSPELS  31 

in  the  development  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  Coming  to  the 
study  of  the  New  Testament,  he  is  naturally  inclined  to 
pursue  the  same  method  of  investigation  and  to  expect  the 
same  results.  The  question  is  whether  he  is  justified  either  in 
his  method  or  in  his  expectation.  The  position  is  really  very 
different.  There  the  different  documents  were  easily  dis- 
tinguishable by  marked  differences  of  style.  There  were 
centuries  during  which  they  were  composed.  They  are  the 
product  of  a  long  history.  It  is,  therefore,  quite  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  there  may  be  sufficient  signs  of  growth  for 
the  process  to  be  discovered.  But  is  it  probable  that  the 
same  can  be  said  of  documents  which  were  produced  within 
thirty  years  (at  the  most)  of  one  another?  It  hardly  seems  so. 

Now  it  may  quite  reasonably  be  admitted  that  both  St. 
Matthew  and  St.  Luke  have  written  their  Gospels  with  the 
interest  of  the  Christian  community  before  them.  It  is  dif- 
ficult to  conceive  how  they  could  have  done  anything  else. 
It  is  equally  natural  that  in  selecting  the  material  at  their 
disposal  they  should  choose  that  which  was  most  suitable  to 
their  circumstances.  St.  Matthew,  therefore,  writing  for 
Jewish  Christians,  retains  many  passages  dealing  with  Jew- 
ish controversy  which  St.  Luke  discards.  St.  Matthew, 
writing  under  the  dominant  influence  of  the  last  agonies  of 
Jerusalem,  emphasizes,  probably  over-emphasizes,  the  escha- 
tological  element  in  our  Lord's  teaching.  St.  Luke  selects 
particularly  the  stories  which  illustrate  our  Lord's  care  for 
the  outcast  and  sinner.  Nor,  again,  would  one  expect  that 
either  Evangelist  would  be  entirely  free  from  the  influences 
of  his  own  time.  For  example,  it  is  quite  possible  that  St. 
Matthew's  warning  against  false  prophets,  "Beware  of  false 
prophets  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's  clothing,  but  inwardly 
are  ravening  wolves,"^  is  a  later  application  of  our  Lord's 
words  which  follow.    All  such  things  are  quite  probable. 

But  Wellhausen  means  much  more  than  this.  He  means 
that  a  large  part  of  the  teaching  ascribed  to  our  Lord  in 
St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  did  not  come  from  Him,  but 
was  the  creation  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  This  he  holds 
particularly  of  the  teaching  about  "the  Kingdom"  which 
he  makes  apparently  the  crucial  point.  Now,  if  he  were  able 
1  Mt.  vii.  15,  16. 


32  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

to  prove  the  use  of  "the  Kingdom"  for  "the  Church" 
occurred  only  in  later  documents,  he  might  have  something 
substantial  to  go  on;  but  that  he  cannot  do.  The  parable 
of  the  mustard  seed  occurs  in  both  the  earliest  sources,  and 
must  refer  to  some  such  conception  of  the  Kingdom  as  is 
implied  by  the  idea  of  the  Church.  So  far,  in  fact,  as  there 
is  any  development  it  is  in  the  other  direction.  The  apoca- 
lyptic or  eschatological  idea  is  much  more  developed  in 
St.  Matthew  than  in  the  other  Gospels.  For  instance,  in 
St.  Mark  we  read:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  be  some 
of  those  standing  here  which  shall  in  no  wise  taste  of  death 
till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God  come  with  power."  ^ 
These  words  are,  it  may  be  noted,  quite  neutral  in  their 
content,  and  are  compatible  with  any  interpretation  of  the 
kingdom.  But  in  St.  Matthew  we  read,  "till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom."^  Here  there  can  be 
no  doubt  the  words  are  intended  to  apply  to  the  Parousia. 
It  will  be  found,  also,  on  examination  that  the  number  of 
instances  in  which  "the  Kingdom"  must  be  interpreted  in 
an  apocalyptic  sense  is  far  greater  in  St.  Matthew  than  in 
any  other  Gospel.  The  fact  is  that  Wellhausen's  generaliza- 
tion is  not  sound,  and  can  only  be  supported  in  defiance  of 
the  evidence.^ 

In  a  similar  way  he  contends  not  only  that  St.  Mark  is 
prior  to  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke,  and  that  the  history,  as 
recorded  in  that  Gospel,  is  more  authentic,  but  that  St. 
Mark  may  be  looked  upon  as  almost  our  only  authority. 
St.  Mark,  it  is  contended,  inserted  in  his  Gospel  everything 
that  was  known  to  him  about  our  Lord,  not  only  narrative, 
but  teaching.  It  is  impossible,  it  is  said,  to  believe  that  he 
left  out  anything  contained  in  other  sources.  In  speeches, 
as  well  as  in  narrative,  his  account  is  prior.  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  was  not  only  unknown  to  him,  but  is  incon- 
sistent with  what  he  tells  us  about  Jesus.  The  same  is  true 
of  the  Lord's  Prayer.  There  may  be  a  few  fragments  of 
early  tradition  in  the  other  Gospels,  but  most  of  what  they 
give  us  is  neither  authentic  nor  historical.'*    Now  as  far  as  I 

1  Mk.  ix.  I.  2  Mt.  xvi.  28. 

^  This  subject  is  worked  out  at  greater  length  in  Chapter  VI. 
^  Wellhausen,  op.  cit.,  pp.  77,  78. 


THE  SYNOPTIC   GOSPELS  33 

can  see  there  is  no  proof  given  in  support  of  these  asser- 
tions. They  seem  to  be  mere  dogmatism.  So  far  as  I  can 
judge,  most  of  the  material  in  the  later  Gospels  is  not  only 
as  early,  but  often,  perhaps,  more  original  that  what  is 
contained  in  St.  Mark. 

Let  us  now  put  aside  all  these  and  suchlike  negative 
theories  which  seem  to  have  very  little  to  commend  them, 
and  approach  the  definite  question  whether  we  have  good 
grounds  for  thinking  that  the  great  bulk  of  the  material 
contained  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  gives  us  authentic  in- 
formation about  our  Lord's  life  and  teaching?  What  can 
we  learn  from  the  character  of  the  contents?  I  would 
suggest  to  you  the  following  points.  First,  the  narrative 
of  these  books  reflects  the  political  and  social  conditions 
which  prevailed  in  Palestine  before  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  change  made  by  that  event  was  so 
great  that  narratives  such  as  these  could  not  have  been 
composed  at  a  later  time.  Then,  secondly,  the  religious 
ideas  implied  are  those  of  a  Judaism  which  was  speedily 
transformed.  As  regards  a  large  part  of  the  narrative  also, 
the  life  that  is  behind  it  is  quite  clearly  that  of  Galilee  and 
not  of  Jerusalem.  Then,  thirdly,  the  teaching,  both  as  re- 
gards its  content  and  its  phraseology,  represents  something 
but  httle  affected  by  later  Christian  theology.  It  is 
markedly  different  from  what  was  built  up  afterwards  by 
the  early  Church  on  the  basis  of  our  Lord's  words. 

You  will  find  in  Dr.  Sanday's  Bampton  Lectures  on  In- 
spiration an  admirable  investigation  of  the  first  of  the 
points  just  enumerated.  He  depicts  the  tremendous  in- 
fluence of  that  world-shaking  catastrophe,  the  fall  of  Jeru- 
salem, and  then  he  proceeds: 

*'Was  there  ever  an  easier  problem  for  the  critic  to  decide 
whether  the  sayings  and  narratives  which  lie  before  him 
come  from  the  one  side  of  this  chasm  or  the  other?  'If 
therefore  thou  art  offering  thy  gift  at  the  altar,  and  there 
rememberest  that  thy  brother  hath  aught  against  thee, 
leave  there  thy  gift  before  the  altar,  and  go  thy  way,  first 
be  reconciled  to  thy  brother,  and  then  come  and  offer  thy 
gift.'  'Woe  unto  you,  ye  blind  guides,  which  say.  Whoso- 
ever shall  swear  by  the  temple,  it  is  nothing;   but  whoso- 


34  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

ever  shall  swear  by  the  gold  of  the  temple,  he  is  a  debtor. 
Ye  fools  and  blind:  for  whether  is  greater,  the  gold,  or  the 
temple  that  hath  sanctified  the  gold?'  A  leper  is  cleansed: 
'And  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  See  thou  tell  no  man;  but  go 
thy  way,  show  thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that 
Moses  commanded,  for  a  testimony  unto  them.'  'And  when 
the  days  of  their  purification  according  to  the  law  of  Moses 
were  fulfilled,  they  brought  Him  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  pre- 
sent Him  to  the  Lord  .  .  .  and  to  offer  a  sacrifice  accord- 
ing to  that  which  is  said  in  the  law  of  the  Lord,  A  pair  of 
turtle  doves  or  two  young  pigeons.'  'And  there  was  one 
Anna,  a  prophetess  .  .  .  which  departed  not  from  the 
temple,  worshipping  with  fasting  and  supplications  night 
and  day.  And  coming  up  at  that  very  hour  she  gave 
thanks  unto  God,  and  spake  of  Him  to  all  them  that  were 
looking  for  the  redemption  of  Jerusalem.'  'And  they  send 
unto  Him  certain  of  the  Pharisees  and  the  Herodians,  that 
they  might  catch  Him  in  talk.  And  when  they  were  come 
they  say  unto  Him  ...  Is  it  lawful  to  give  tribute  unto 
Caesar  or  not? '  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you.  Ye  shall  not  have  gone 
through  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of  man  be  come? ' "  ^ 

It  may  be  noticed  that  the  greater  number  of  these  in- 
stances are  taken  from  the  secondary  matter  of  the  Gos- 
pels, and  represent  therefore  that  portion  which  could 
generally  be  looked  upon  as  later.  As  regards  the  strong 
Galilaean  element,  I  shall  discuss  that  when  I  speak  of  the 
Education  of  Jesus.^  It  will,  I  think,  be  found  that  there 
is  a  remarkable  homogeneity  of  style  and  method  in  the 
greater  part  of  our  Lord's  teaching  which  impHes  an  honio- 
geneity  of  source. 

Then  as  regards  the  teaching.  On  the  one  side  we  have 
considerable  knowledge  of  the  thoughts  and  ideas  of  con- 
temporary Judaism.  There  are  many  expressions  and 
phrases  which  were  clearly  current  at  the  time.  All  these 
are  reflected  in  the  Gospel  teaching.  It  takes  its  place  as 
something  which,  humanly  speaking,  could  only  have  been 
produced    at   that   period   of   the   world's   history   and   in 

1  Inspiration.  Eight  Lectures  on  the  Early  History  and  Origin  of  the  Doc- 
trine of  Biblical  Inspiration.  Being  the  Bampton  Lectures  for  1893,  by  W. 
Sanday  (London:   Longmans,  Green  and  Co.,  1893),  pp.  284,  285. 

2  See  chapter  II. 


THE   TEACHING  OF   THE   GOSPEL  35 

Palestine.  Equally  interesting  is  the  contrast  which  the 
Gospels  offer  with  later  Christian  development.  We  know 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Epistles  the  teach- 
ing of  the  first  generation  of  Christians.  It  is  probable 
that  the  majority  of  the  Epistles  were  written  before  our 
Gospels  took  their  present  form.  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke 
were  written  for  Gentile  readers,  and  there  are  signs  that 
these  Gospels  were  in  some  ways  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
those  for  whom  they  wrote,  but  there  are  few  signs  of  adap- 
tation in  the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus  as  it  is  reported  in 
them.  Such  an  expression  as  "the  Son  of  man"  never  oc- 
curs in  the  Epistles;  it  occurs  constantly  in  the  Gospels, 
and  we  know  that  it  was  used  in  later  Judaism.  The  "king- 
dom of  heaven"  would  have  been  almost  meaningless  in 
Athens  or  Corinth.  It  might  even  have  been  dangerous. 
Only  occasionally  do  we  find  it  in  the  Epistles,  and  then 
clearly  as  a  recognized  archaism.  It  is  the  normal  expres- 
sion in  the  Gospels. 

And  there  are  few  or  no  anachronisms.  When  the  Gos- 
pels were  written  the  Christian  Church  existed  as  an  or- 
ganized society.  It  would  inevitably  have  been  the  case 
that  if  much  of  the  Gospel  teaching  had  originated  at  a 
time  after  the  death  of  our  Lord,  it  would  have  reflected 
the  conditions  of  the  Christian  Society.  But  it  is  singularly 
difficult  to  discover  even  possible  anachronisms.  It  has 
been  maintained  that  we  find  one  such  in  the  introduction 
of  the  word  ecclesia  in  St.  Matthew.  It  may  be  so,  al- 
though personally  I  see  no  reason  why  our  Lord  should  not 
have  used  it,  as  it  is  an  expression  which  comes  straight 
from  the  Psalms.  But  even  if  it  has  come  into  the  narra- 
tive later,  we  must  notice  how  the  words  that  accompany 
it  concerning  "binding  and  loosing,"  and  the  phraseology 
used  in  the  promise  to  St.  Peter,  are  not  derived  from 
Christian  teaching,  but  are  entirely  Jewish  in  their  associa- 
tions. Perhaps  the  most  marked  contrast  between  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Gospels  and  that  of  later  Christianity  is  the 
rare  occurrence  in  the  words  of  Our  Lord  of  any  reference 
to  the  Spirit.  I  know  nothing  which  could  be  a  more  con- 
vincing proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the  teaching.  The 
Apostolic  period  was  the  period  of  the  Spirit.     St.  Luke 

4 


36  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

wrote  two  works.  In  the  second,  which  deals  with  the 
Apostolic  Church,  references  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
abound;  in  the  former  they  occur  but  seldom,  and  hardly  at 
all  in  the  words  of  Jesus.  Whereas  in  St.  John's  Gospel  (which, 
whatever  we  may  think  of  it,  clearly  presents  a  later 
phraseology)  there  are  important  references  to  the  Spirit,  in 
the  Synoptic  Gospels  they  are  but  few.  The  Synoptic  nar- 
ratives represent  a  pre-apostolic  stratum  of  Christian  teaching. 

I  hope  that  what  I  have  said  may  suggest  to  you  that  we 
have  strong  grounds  for  thinking  that  in  the  Synoptic 
Gospels  we  have  authentic  information  about  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus.  The  Gospels,  as  we  have  them,  are  the 
product  of  the  second  generation  of  Christians;  they  con- 
tain the  records  of  our  Lord's  life  as  they  were  written 
down  by  the  first  generation,  and  as  they  had  been  delivered 
orally  from  the  beginning.  A  further  test  of  this  authenticity 
will  be  furnished,  if  we  are  able  to  construct  out  of  them  some 
homogeneous  account  of  the  life  and  teaching  of  our  Lord. 

It  remains  to  ask  how  we  should  use  them.  It  is  the 
custom  to  lay  great  stress  on  what  is  contained  in  St.  Mark 
or  in  The  Discourses,  or  in  both,  and  to  depreciate  the  matter 
peculiar  to  St.  Luke,  and  still  more  that  in  St.  Matthew, 
I  doubt  very  much  whether  that  attitude  is  really  justified. 
I  certainly  think  that  it  has  been  carried  too  far.  There 
are,  no  doubt,  both  in  St.  Matthew  and  in  St.  Luke,  some 
narratives  which  may  represent  a  doubtful  tradition;  the 
same  is  probably  true  of  St.  Mark.  There  are,  however, 
no  good  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  special  source  (what- 
ever it  may  have  been)  of  St.  Luke,  and  the  sources  from 
which  St.  Matthew  derived  the  bulk  of  his  peculiar  teach- 
ing, were  inferior  to  the  other  two  sources  that  we  possess. 
If  Dr.  Streeter's  conjectures  have  anything  in  them  (and 
they  help,  as  we  have  seen,  to  solve  certain  problems), 
St.  Luke  came  across  his  special  source  a  considerable 
time  before  he  came  across  St.  Mark,  very  probably,  in 
fact,  before  St.  Mark  was  written.  It  is,  therefore,  not 
only  earlier  in  date,  but  perhaps  in  some  ways  more  origi- 
nal. These  facts  suggest  a  different  method.  We  have 
really,  at  least,  four  independent  sources.  We  have  St. 
Mark,   The  Discourses,  St.  Luke's  special  source,  and  St. 


THE  GOSPEL  OF  ST.  JOHN  37 

Matthew's  source  or  sources.  We  must  give  the  greater 
weight  to  such  aspects  of  our  Lord's  teaching  as  may  be 
gathered  from  all  these  sources,  or  at  any  rate  may  har- 
monize with  what  they  tell  us.  Isolated  teaching  we  shall 
be  more  cautious  in  admitting.  I  cannot,  however,  see  any 
justification  for  the  statement  which  I  find  so  confidently 
made  that  the  parables  of  the  tares  or  of  the  sheep  and 
goats,  to  take  two  instances,  are  not  authentic.  In  style 
and  subject-matter  alike  they  harmonize  with  other  teach- 
ing of  our  Lord,  and  they  fill  in  details  in  the  picture  which 
we  construct  from  all  these  sources.  We  shall  gradually, 
from  the  evidence  before  us,  construct  our  story.  It  will  be 
the  consistency  of  the  whole  which  will  be  some  verification 
of  our  process.  What  I  think  scientific  criticism  would  cer- 
tainly forbid  would  be  to  rule  out  any  aspects  of  life  and 
teaching  on  a  priori  grounds.  It  may  be  quite  possible 
that  when  we  have  finished  we  may  find  alien  elements 
which  refuse  to  combine.  If  we  do,  we  shall  rightly  dis- 
card them.     What  is  unscientific  is  to  begin  by  discarding. 

VII 

We  come  now  to  St.  John's  Gospel.  You  will  recognize 
that  at  present  there  is  nothing  very  convincing  to  be  said 
about  it.  The  whole  critical  question  is  in  confusion,  and 
neither  those  who  hold  the  traditional  view  nor  their  op- 
ponents are  able  to  put  forward  a  theory  which  commands 
assent.  It  is  quite  clear  from  external  testimony  that  a 
date  much  later  than  100  a.d.  is  quite  impossible.  In  fact, 
it  may  be  doubted  if  the  Gospel  can  be  as  late  as  that. 
This  much  the  investigations  of  the  last  century  appear 
to  have  established.  Then,  again,  the  tradition  of  the 
Johannine  authorship  is  very  strong.  On  the  other  hand, 
a  study  of  its  contents  places  serious  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  ascribing  it  directly  to  a  contemporary  and  first-hand 
authority.  It  differs  so  remarkably  from  the  Synoptic 
Gospels. 

The  style  of  the  speeches  is  so  different.  There  are 
so  many  apparent  anachronisms.  The  language  is  just 
what  the  language  of  the  Synoptists  is  not,  influenced 
by  later  theology.     I  do  not  say  that  these  characteristics 


38  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

present  insuperable  objections  to  the  traditional  theory, 
but  they  demand  consideration.  Then,  again,  persistent 
arguments  are  brought  forward  to  show  that  John,  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  so  far  from  living  to  a  great  age  and  being  the 
last  survivor  of  the  apostolic  band,  had  really  been  put  to 
death  by  the  Jews  in  the  early  days  of  the  Church,  prob- 
ably at  the  same  time  as  his  brother  James.  Again,  I  do 
not  think  the  arguments  convincing,  but  they  throw  much 
uncertainty  over  the  whole  problem.  Some  have  attempted 
to  make  use  of  John  the  presbyter  to  solve  the  problem. 
Some  have  invented  a  beloved  disciple  a  Jerusalem  con- 
vert. Some  have  thought  that  the  beloved  disciple  was 
never  intended  to  be  a  real  person,  but  was  an  ideal  cre- 
ation, that  person  who  had  never  existed  who  was  able  to 
really  understand  his  Master.  I  am  not  going  now  to 
attempt  to  solve  these  problems,  but  I  am  going  to  look 
at  the  Gospel  from  another  point  of  view,  and  setting 
aside  entirely  the  question  of  authorship,  ask  whether  it 
shows  signs  of  containing  independent  and  sound  historical 
tradition. 

To  begin  with,  let  me  say  that  we  may,  I  think,  be 
satisfied  that  so  far  as  concerns  everything  except  the 
language  the  book  is  not  Greek.  In  a  sense,  indeed,  this  is 
true  even  of  the  language,  for  the  style  of  St.  John's  Gospel 
is  such  that  no  real  Greek  would  ever  have  written  it.  The 
Dean  of  St.  Paul's  has  told  us  that  the  fourth  Gospel  may 
be  looked  upon  as  a  handbook  to  a  Greek  mystery  religion. 
There  is,  I  believe,  no  justification  at  all  for  such  a  state- 
ment. The  author  of  the  Gospel  was  a  Jew,  whose  thoughts 
and  ideas  were  drawn  almost  exclusively  from  Jewish 
sources.  Even  the  famous  term  the  Logos  has  antecedents, 
as  Westcott  pointed  out,  not  only  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  in  Rabbinical  Judaism,  and  it  is  not  probable  that  the 
author  of  the  Gospel  went  further  afield  than  the  Jew  Philo 
or  some  follower  of  his  for  the  Hellenic  colouring  (if,  in- 
deed, there  be  such)  in  the  use  of  the  word.  The  style  is 
throughout  Semitic,  and  as  Dr.  Burney  has  shown,  it  may 
be  easily  retranslated   into   Aramaic.^     That   does   not,   I 

1  The  Aramaic  Origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  by  the  Rev.  C.  F.  Burney, 
M.A.,  D.Litt.  (Oxford:   The  Clarendon  Press,  1922).     Dr.  Burney's  work  is 


ST.   JOHN  AND   THE   SYNOPTICS  39 

think,  mean,  as  he  suggests,  that  there  was  an  Aramaic 
original,  but  that  the  author,  an  Aramaic-speaking  Jew, 
thought  in  that  language,  and  had  created  for  himself  this 
somewhat  curious  Greek  medium  for  expressing  his 
thoughts.  Moreover,  the  tendency  of  all  recent  investiga- 
tion has  been  to  emphasize  more  decisively  how  much  in 
the  Gospel  harmonizes  with  traditional  Jewish  thought. 
Many  parallels  to  its  teaching  may  be  found  in  the  Midrash. 
The  hfe  and  society  that  is  depicted  is  that  of  Jerusalem 
when  the  Temple  was  standing.  Its  whole  contents  belong 
to  an  epoch  which  passed  away  when  Jerusalem  was  de- 
stroyed. 

If  we  turn  to  the  contents  there  are,  I  think,  quite  clear 
signs  that  the  author  was  acquainted  with  all  the  three 
Synoptic  Gospels.  He  might  use  them  for  the  incidents 
that  he  described,  which  were  almost  always  introduced  as 
the  occasion  of  instruction,  and  to  a  certain  extent  he  has 
done  so;  but  the  interesting  fact  is  that  he  generally  pre- 
fers to  tell  us  something  which  they  did  not,  and  even 
when  he  does  follow  them  he  adds  information,  or  even  ap- 
pears to  be  silently  correcting  them.  Was  all  this  imagina- 
tive reconstruction,  as  some  have  held,  or  had  the  author 
independent  knowledge,  whether  gained  from  tradition,  or 
from  written  sources,  or  from  his  own  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  the  events  that  he  describes? 

Let  us  examine  some  of  the  narratives.  I  will  begin  with 
the  story  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude.  Here  a  statement 
is  made,  which  is  not  in  the  other  Gospels,  and  is  clearly 
of  great  importance.  We  are  told  that  the  people  wished  to 
make  Jesus  a  king.  Now  this  is  hardly  a  trait  which  the 
writer  would  have  been  likely  to  invent  or  to  imagine.  It 
has  little  to  do  with  his  purpose  in  narrating  the  incident, 
which  was  mainly  as  an  introduction  to  the  discourse  on 
the  Bread  of  Life.  Yet,  if  it  be  true,  it  throws  great  light 
'on  the  story  as  we  have  it  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It 
helps  to  make  the  narrative  of  the  ministry  comprehensible. 
It   explains   the   crisis   that   had   been   reached.     The   full 

one  of  great  importance.  It  seems  to  me  at  least  sufficient  to  prove  that 
the  author  thought  in  Semitic  form,  and  that  the  affinities  of  his  subject- 
matter  are  Jewish  and  not  Hellenic. 


40  THE  CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

meaning  will  come  out  in  our  narrative;  the  point  I  wish  to 
emphasize  now  is  that  here  we  have  information  which  is 
independent,  which  has  the  appearance  of  being  authentic, 
and  was  not  hkely  to  have  been  invented  by  the  author.^ 

So,  again,  if  we  turn  to  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel,  we 
learn  that  there  was  an  early  connection  between  the  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  and  John,  that  some  of  them  had  been  fol- 
lowers of  John,  and  that  Jesus  Himself  had  been  more  or 
less  associated  with  the  preaching  of  John.  Now  all  this 
seems  to  supplement  what  we  read  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
Why  is  it  that  St.  Mark  tells  us  that  it  was  after  John  was 
delivered  up  that  Jesus  came  to  Galilee?  Surely  this  implies 
that  there  had  been  a  close  connection  between  the  two, 
just  as  we  are  told  in  St.  John's  narrative.  Why,  again, 
does  St.  Peter  in  the  Acts,  when  he  describes  the  qualifica- 
tion of  an  apostle,  state  that  their  witness  began  with  the 
baptism  of  John?  Surely  that  impKes  that  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  were  drawn  from  those  who  had  followed  the  Baptist. 
Here,  again,  we  seem  to  have  authentic  information.^ 

Or  let  us  turn  to  the  other  end  of  the  ministry.  Accord- 
ing to  St.  John's  Gospel,  our  Lord  was  first  brought  before 
Annas.  Now  for  many  reasons  this  was  extremely  prob- 
able. Annas  was  the  power  behind  the  throne.  High  priest 
himself  for  only  a  short  time,  owing  probably  to  the  Roman 
fear  of  the  man  who  was  too  strong,  his  sons  held  the  office 
in  succession,  and  Caiaphas  was  his  son-in-law.  Moreover, 
if,  as  tradition  says,  the  unlawful  gains  from  the  traffic  in  the 
Temple  court  were  the  chief  source  of  the  wealth  of  his 
family,  he  had  a  personal  grievance.  The  incident  is  quite 
probable,  and  it  is  a  little  difficult  to  see  why  it  should  have 
been  invented.  Here,  again,  we  seem  to  have  good  in- 
formation. 

A  still  more  important  point  is  the  date  of  the  crucifixion. 
That  we  mentioned  as  one  of  the  great  difficulties  in  the  story 
of  St.  Mark.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  the  trial  and 
crucifixion  should  have  taken  place  on  the  actual  day  of 
the  Passover.  It  is  quite  natural  that  the  indecent  haste 
which  characterized  the  trial  of  our  Lord  arose  from  the 
desire  that  it  should  be  over  before  the  festival  began. 
1  See  below,  Chapter  VII.  ^  See  Chapter  III. 


TEACHING  IN  ST.  JOHN'S   GOSPEL  41 

Here,  again,  the  narrative  of  St.  John  appears  to  preserve 
an  authentic  tradition. 

There  are  other  narratives,  also,  which  present  similar 
signs  of  authenticity.  It  is  clear  that  our  account  of  the 
Galilaean  narrative  is  very  fragmentary  and  presents  large 
gaps.  Visits  to  Jerusalem,  also,  are  certainly  probable; 
Jesus,  as  a  loyal  Jew,  would  wish  to  keep  the  feasts.  We 
have,  therefore,  I  hold,  reason  for  thinking  that  (whatever 
opinion  we  hold  about  the  authorship  of  the  fourth  Gospel) 
it  certainly  contains  authentic  and  independent  tradition. 
We  know  that  there  must  have  been  a  much  larger 
amount  remembered  about  Jesus  than  is  contained  in  the 
other  three  Gospels.  We  know  that  there  were  other 
sources  of  written  information  available.  Much  might  be 
explained  if  it  were  true  that  the  author  or  source  of  the 
Gospel  was  an  elderly  disciple  who  combined  with  a  vivid 
memory  of  some  events  a  great  power  of  spiritual  insight. 
The  point  that  is  important  for  our  purpose  and  that  I 
wish  to  emphasize  is  that  we  have  in  the  fourth  Gospel 
information  which  we  may  use  to  supplement  and  illustrate 
what  we  obtain  from  other  sources. 

As  regards  the  teaching,  there  can,  I  think,  be  httle 
doubt  that,  as  we  have  it,  it  represents  a  development; 
that  it  has  been  translated  into  the  language  and  forms  of 
thought  of  a  later  time;  that  it  is  influenced  in  a  way  that 
the  teaching  in  the  other  Gospels  is  not  by  the  theological 
ideas  and  expressions  which  grew  up  in  the  ApostoKc 
Church.  But  having  recognized  so  much,  we  may  still 
hold  that  it  represents  a  real  tradition.  The  writer  knew 
and  understood  our  Lord's  teaching,  and  interpreted  it  in  a 
way  which  would  harmonize  with  the  thought  of  his  own 
time.  He  wished  us  to  understand  what  seemed  to  him  to 
have  been  Our  Lord's  real  meaning.  No  doubt  in  doing 
this  he  would  go  beyond  the  actual  words  of  Jesus,  but  that 
does  not  mean  that  his  knowledge  was  not  derived  from  a 
good  source  nor  his  interpretations  correct. 

Our  method  of  using  the  Gospel  must,  I  am  afraid,  at 
present  be  a  somewhat  eclectic  one.  Our  aim  is  to  write 
a  history,  not  a  theology.  We  want  to  know  what  Jesus 
actually  did  and  said,  and  how  He  said  it.     We  must  be 


42  THE   CRITICAL  ATTITUDE 

prepared,  therefore,  to  judge  each  incident  on  its  merits, 
and  see  how  far  it  is  possible  to  combine  it  with  the  Syn- 
optic narrative.  We  have,  indeed,  to  do  that  to  a  certain 
extent  in  relation  to  the  earlier  Gospels.  So  as  regards  the 
teaching.  We  can  use  it  particularly  when  it  seems  to  bring 
out  and  strengthen  the  Synoptic  tradition.  Very  often  it 
gives  a  meaning  to  it.  But  we  have  to  be  on  our  guard 
against  developments  which  are  natural  and  represent  the 
purpose  of  our  Lord's  Ministry,  but  do  not  represent  what 
He  actually  said.  We  shall  not  understand  the  method  of 
that  ministry  if  we  confuse  legitimate  development  with  ac- 
tual teaching.  Our  attitude  must  be  the  same  as  that 
habitual  in  writing  secular  history.  We  have  to  construct 
our  picture  from  all  material  available,  and  estimate  the 
relative  value  of  different  authorities.  We  must  not  begin 
our  work  by  ruhng  any  out. 

VIII 

Of  the  secondary  sources  which  have  been  enumerated 
above  I  need  not  say  anything  further,  with  the  exception 
of  the  evidence  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  You  will  find  it 
often  asserted  that  the  Gospels  were  the  creation  of  the 
Christian  Church  —  "Mark,"  say  Dr.  Kirsopp  Lake  and 
Dr.  Foakes  Jackson,  "is  far  more  a  primary  authority  for 
the  thought  of  the  ApostoHc  Age  than  for  the  Hfe  of  Jesus. 
We  have,  indeed,  no  better  authority;  but  it  must  be  taken 
for  what  it  is."^  It  may  be  hoped  that  the  investigations 
just  concluded  will  constitute  some  evidence  towards 
throwing  doubt  on  this  proposition,  but  a  question  is  raised 
which  must  be  often  in  our  minds.  If  the  Church  created 
the  Gospels,  what  created  the  Church?  The  problem  before 
anyone  who  attempts  to  write  about  the  life  of  Jesus  is  to 
explain  the  Apostolic  Church  and  the  fact  of  Christianity. 
The  cause  for  these  remarkable  phenomena  must  be  one 
really  sufficient. 

What  this  problem  means  a  single  illustration  will  dis- 
close. In  the  two  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians 
we  have  documents  of  whose  date,  authorship,  and  authen- 
ticity there  can  be  no  doubt.     From  them  we  can  get  a 

^  The  Beginnings  of  Christianity,  vol.  i.,  p.  268. 


THE  APOSTOLIC   CHURCH  43 

fairly  clear  and  sufficient  account  of  what  was  the  character 
of  a  nascent  Christianity.  We  can  put  together  a  picture 
of  the  Christian  Church  at  that  time.  We  can  learn  its  be- 
liefs, its  theology,  and  its  ethics.  The  picture  that  is  pre- 
sented to  us  is  a  remarkable  one;  the  religious,  spiritual 
and  moral  Hfe  there  portrayed  represent  a  most  remarkable 
human  achievement.  We  can  compare  it  with  anything 
that  ever  existed  before,  whether  Jewish  or  Gentile,  and 
there  is  nothing  like  it.  A  complete  revolution  in  thought 
and  hfe  has  been  created.  It  has  grown  up  in  the  short 
space  of  some  twenty-five  years.  It  was  undoubtedly  the 
result  of  the  Hfe  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  We  must  so  de- 
scribe that  life  as  to  account  for  this  new  spiritual  epoch. 

In  the  literature  of  the  ApostoHc  Church  we  find  some 
striking  new  ideas.  One  is  the  new  position  which  the  word 
agape  or  love  and  the  ideas  that  it  represents  have  attained. 
The  word  is  almost  new.  The  idea  is  in  quite  a  novel  form. 
We  find  it  clearly  represented  as  the  great  motive  of  life  in 
St.  Paul,  we  find  it  in  St.  John  and  St.  Peter.  It  becomes 
at  once  a  normal  and  the  most  essential  part  of  Christian 
ethics.  There  is  nothing  similar  in  any  pre-Christian  writ- 
ings Jewish  or  Gentile.  When  we  turn  to  our  sources  we 
find  it  part  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  although  in  St.  Mark, 
at  any  rate,  the  reference  to  it  is  slight.  Yet  this  reference 
is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  came  from  the  teaching  of 
Jesus  himself,  and  enables  us  to  see  how  Christian  ethical 
teaching  was  created  by  the  words  of  its  founder. 

In  the  same  way  we  have  in  this  apostolic  literature  a 
remarkable  conception  of  the  person  of  Jesus.  The  several 
writers  have  each  their  own  character;  their  manner  of 
expression  is  not  uniform,  but  they  all  agree  in  depicting  a 
person  quite  different  from  anything  that  had  ever  appeared 
elsewhere.  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the  fulfilment  of  Jewish 
expectations;  He  is  the  Son  of  God;  He  is  the  Lord;  He  is 
the  Saviour  of  Mankind;  He  is  the  source  of  life  and  light 
to  the  world;  He  is  the  object  of  human  devotion  and 
adoration;  His  coming  has  created  a  new  epoch  in  the 
world.  Human  nature  has  been  transformed.  Human  hfe 
has  a  higher  meaning.  There  is  no  limitation  to  the  wonder 
and  glory  that  is  ascribed  to  Him.     All  this  happened  with- 


44  THE   CRITICAL   ATTITUDE 

in  the  lifetime  of  many  that  knew  his  earthly  life.  Almost 
the  complete  development,  if  it  be  a  development,  occurs 
within  a  generation.  Who  or  what  was  He  that  He  could 
be  so  spoken  of  amongst  those  who  knew  Him? 

A  Christian  Church  grew  up.  It  began  in  Jerusalem, 
but  it  spread  with  extreme  rapidity  throughout  the  world. 
Wherever  it  appeared  it  aroused  extraordinary  devotion 
and  enthusiasm  among  those  who  became  members  of  it. 
They  were  ready  to  give  themselves  up  for  this  new  cause 
even  unto  death.  Their  whole  life  was  transformed.  Their 
ideas  were  marvellously  changed.  They  had  attained  a  new 
power.  All  this  was  believed  to  be  owing  to  the  life  and 
teaching  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Who  and  what  was  He 
that  He  could  produce  this  new  life? 

I  have  very  shortly  thus  sketched  the  problem  that  is 
before  us.  We  have  certain  documents  which  describe  to 
us  the  life  of  Jesus.  We  have  from  these  to  try  to  imagine 
what  He  was,  remembering  what  the  generation  of  those 
who  had  known  Him  thought  of  Him,  and  what  He  made 
them  become.  The  problem  of  Jesus  is  the  problem  of 
Christianity. 


CHAPTER  I 

PALESTINE   CIVIL   AND   RELIGIOUS   AT  THE  TIME    OF 
THE   CHRISTL\N  ERA 

Those  educated  in  the  profound  peace  of  Victorian  England 
have  in  the  last  four  years  learnt  to  understand  the  joy  and 
hope  with  which  the  civilized  world  greeted  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Augustan  age.^  For  more  than  three  years  we 
have  seen  Europe  and  Asia  devastated  by  the  horrors  of 
war.  We  have  seen  France  and  Belguim,  Poland  and 
Galicia,  Serbia,  Roumania,  Italy,  overrun  by  hostile  armies, 
their  wealth  plundered  and  their  people  enslaved.  We  have 
seen  the  Christians  of  Armenia  and  Syria  massacred.  We 
are  watching  the  chaos  of  a  great  revolution  in  the  most 
conservative  country  of  Europe.  A  new  and  hideous  piracy 
has  endangered  the  seas.  The  armies  that  have  been 
fighting  are  greater  than  history  has  recorded  or  imagined. 
There  are  over  40,000,000  men  under  arms.  More  than 
5,000,000  have  laid  down  their  lives.  The  hope  of  a  genera- 
tion has  been  destroyed.  No  wonder  there  is  a  great  long- 
ing for  peace,  and  men,  stirred  by  the  scenes  which  they 
have  witnessed  and  the  contest  in  which  they  have  fought, 
are  dreaming  of  a  new  Europe  and  a  reconstructed  world. 
How  infinitely  greater  must  have  been  the  longing  for 
peace  during  the  birth  travail  of  the  Roman  Empire!  For 
a  hundred  years  at  home  and  abroad  the  civilized  world  had 
endured  a  continuous  succession  of  wars,  of  murders,  of 
rebelhons  and  fratricidal  strife.  Their  great  men  had  been 
murdered,  from  the  Gracchi  to  Caesar  and  Cicero.  They 
had  seen  twelve  civil  wars  and  five  great  massacres.  They 
might  have  walked  for  150  miles  along  the  highway  from 
Rome  to  Capua  and  seen,  extending  the  whole  distance,  the 
crosses  bearing  the  bodies  of  the  captured  gladiators.    They 

1  This  chapter  was  written  in  the  spring  of  191 8.     I  have  not  thought 
it  necessary  to  rewrite  this  passage. 

45 


46  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

had  seen  the  seas  teeming  with  pirates,  the  East  in  the 
hands  of  barbarians,  the  Roman  citizens  of  the  provinces 
massacred.  The  forum  had  resounded  with  the  complaints 
of  the  plundered  provinces,  and  the  country  far  and  wide 
revealed  the  decay  of  agriculture  and  of  honest  industry.^ 
No  wonder  the  victory  of  Caesar  and  the  generosity  that  he 
exhibited  —  it  seemed  the  sign  of  a  new  age  —  roused  lofty 
hopes.  His  murder  dashed  them  to  the  ground.  Expecta- 
tions were  concentrated  on  his  heir,  the  young  Octavius. 
Brundisium  brought  peace,  but  a  peace  which  was  falla- 
cious. At  length  Actium  brought  victory  and  peace.  The 
gates  of  Janus  were  closed. 

The  world  enjoyed  at  last  freedom  from  war,  a  stable 
government,  a  well-ordered  commonwealth,  seas  free  for 
peaceful  commerce,  agriculture  and  industry  restored.  An 
outburst  of  material  prosperity  heralded  the  dawn  of  a  new 
age,  and  Virgil,  the  poet  of  Roman  greatness  in  the  past, 
was  the  prophet  of  a  recreated  world."  When  in  40  B.C. 
the  rulers  of  the  world  had  made  peace  at  Brundisium,  and 
Polio,  the  poet,  was  consul,  and  Augustus  was  expecting 
the  birth  of  an  heir,  he  sang  how  the  last  aeon  of  the  world's 
history,  the  kingdom  of  God  that  the  Cumaean  sibil  fore- 
told, had  now  come.  A  new  cycle  of  the  ages  had  begun. 
The  ancient  kingdom  of  Saturn  would  be  restored.  The 
age  of  gold  was  at  hand.  Justice  once  more  would  visit  the 
earth  she  had  so  long  deserted.  From  heaven  would  de- 
scend a  child  of  promise.  The  whole  earth  rejoiced  at  his 
coming,  and  the  heavens  greeted  the  advent  of  the  heaven- 
sent ruler  who  would  complete  the  work  his  father  had  be- 
gun. A  new  peace  would  fall  on  the  world.  The  strife  of 
animals,  as  of  men,  would  end.    All  evil  things  would  cease 

1  I  am  indebted  for  this  paragraph  to  Professor  Conway,  Virgil's  Mes- 
sianic Eclogue,  p.  33. 

^  The  EngUsh  reader  may  learn  all  that  is  necessary  about  the  Fourth 
Eclogue  of  Virgil  in  Virgil's  Messianic  Eclogue,  its  Meaning,  Occasion,  and 
Sources,  three  studies  by  Joseph  B.  Mayor,  W.  Warde  Fowler,  R.  S.  Con- 
way, with  the  text  of  the  eclogue  and  a  verse  translation  by  R.  S.  Conway 
(London:  John  Murray,  1907).  He  will  find  the  problems  treated  with 
learning,  insight,  and  intelligence,  and  if  he  desires  to  wander  further  into 
the  literature  of  the  subject,  which  is  vast,  it  will  serve  him  as  an  intro- 
duction. 


THE  AUGUSTAN  PEACE  47 

to  hurt.  The  earth  would  bear  more  rich  and  varied  fruits, 
and  the  bounty  of  nature  would  imitate  all  the  arts  of  man, 
Virgil  never  loses  faith  in  a  new  world  of  justice,  mercy,  and 
peace  inaugurated  by  the  divine  Julian  race.^ 

Our  hopes  of  the  future  are  seldom  realized  in  the  way 
that  we  form  them.  We  seldom  attain  what  we  desire. 
But  however  different  the  result  may  be  from  our  anticipa- 
tions, our  spiritual  aspirations  are  not  in  vain.  The  son 
whose  birth  Augustus  expected  and  Virgil  foretold  was 
never  born.  The  Roman  Empire  fulfilled  its  part  in  the 
world's  history,  and  prepared  the  way,  as  we  shall  have  to 
narrate,  for  the  rise  and  triumph  of  Christianity,  but  it  was 
a  poor  reflection  of  the  hopes  of  the  poet.  Yet  Virgil  was 
all  unconsciously  the  prophet  of  the  greatest  spiritual  revo- 
lution the  world  had  seen;  he  has  attained  a  fame  which 
he  could  not  have  understood  as  the  herald  of  a  new  reli- 
gion, and  his  poem  has  played  an  all  unexpected  part  in 
the  religious  history  of  the  world. 

In  contrast  to  the  joy  with  which  the  world  greeted  the 
new  Empire  was  the  attitude  of  the  Jews  in  Palestine  —  an 
attitude  of  sullen  resistance.  It  took  the  form  of  opposi- 
tion to  whatever  government  they  might  have.  When  they 
were  under  their  own  Hasmonaean  kings  there  was  no  lan- 
guage too  strong  to  express  their  hatred.  Herod  succeeded 
and,  in  a  vulgar  Eastern  way,  reproduced  for  his  kingdom 
the  law  and  order,  the  peace  and  material  prosperity,  that 
Augustus  had  given  the  world;  yet  their  hatred  of  him  and 
his  family  was  profound.  They  demanded  to  Hve  accord- 
ing to  their  own  laws  under  the  immediate  rule  of  the 
Romans.  When  granted  their  request,  they  exhibited  for 
the  priestly  aristocracy  that  governed  them  the  most  pro- 
found contempt,  and  Roman  rule  produced  a  bitter  oppo- 
sition which  consolidated  into  the  sect  of  the  Zealots,  now 
suppressed,  now  bursting  out  afresh,  continued  until  the 
final  rebellion  and  the  indescribable  horrors  of  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  It  may  be  held  that  this  attitude  of  resentment 
was  due  to  the  unfortunate  character  of  the  rulers.  That 
no   doubt   increased   the   evil,   but  it   was   not   the   cause. 

1  Compare  Virgil,  Eel,  iv.,  4-7,  50-53;  ix.,  4-7;  Aen.,  i.,  291-294;  vi., 
792-795;   852-854. 


48  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND  RELIGIOUS 

Rather  the  harshness  of  the  rule  was  largely  the  result  of 
the  turbulence  of  the  people,  which  was  of  a  character 
beyond  the  endurance  of  any  ordinary  ruler.  The  funda- 
mental cause  was  the  revolt  of  a  religious  sense,  often  no 
doubt  much  perverted,  against  a  purely  material  and  en- 
tirely irreligious  civilization.  It  must  be  recognized  that 
the  Roman  Empire  was  in  its  essence  unspiritual  —  so  the 
literature  of  the  Augustan  age  reveals  it.  And  if  Virgil  per- 
haps throws  a  halo  of  romance  around  it,  that  was  an  ideal- 
ism which  few  shared,  Augustus  accomplished  his  task, 
but  he  had  no  vision  himself,  and  gave  no  inspiration  to 
the  world  that  he  had  recreated.  The  old  religions  were  de- 
stroyed. The  new  state  rehgion  of  the  imperial  cult  could 
never  arouse  any  conviction.  To  many  it  was  blasphemous, 
to  many  ridiculous.  It  produced  at  best  a  certain  social 
cohesion.  The  Empire  gave  law  and  order  and  stabihty; 
it  secured  the  merchant  his  gains;  it  enabled  the  farmer 
to  sow  in  peace;  it  made  a  life  of  pleasure  easy;  but  it 
had  destroyed  the  old  ideals  and  could  not  create  new  ones. 

The  world,  weary  of  disorder,  acquiesced  in  the  loss  of 
liberty;  disillusioned  and  without  faith,  it  acquiesced  in 
religious  unreaHty.  There  were  few  that  were  dissatisfied. 
But  the  Jew  had  a  real  belief  and  cherished  his  hope  and 
his  faith.  The  result  was  twofold.  There  were  those  who 
clung  to  old  poUtical  aims.  They  were  zealous,  but  with  a 
perverted  zeal.  They  never  accepted  the  necessity  of  Roman 
rule.  They  had  to  submit  to  force,  but  they  never  neg- 
lected an  opportunity  of  resistance.  The  slightest  inci- 
dent fanned  the  flame.  So  the  next  seventy  years  are  the 
history  of  an  opposition,  now  concealed,  now  open,  of  a 
destructive  fire  at  times  smouldering,  at  times  breaking  out 
into  flame,  until  it  ended  in  the  final  conflagration. 

But  side  by  side  with  this  was  another  history.  There 
were  many  who  cherished  the  most  spiritual  ideals  of  Israel. 
In  all  the  turmoil  and  strife  these  were  never  lost.  They 
preserved  the  loftiest  hopes  of  the  Prophets,  and  practised 
the  profound  religion  of  the  Psalms.  They  lived  in  piety 
and  obscurity.  To  them  a  message  came,  a  gospel  of  good 
tidings,  which  could  satisfy  their  hopes,  which  showed  them 
how  religion  could  accept  the  rule  of  Rome,  and  enabled 


THE   DEATH  OF  HEROD  49 

them  to  fulfil  the  mission  that  their  nation  had  to  accom- 
pUsh  for  the  world. 

These  are  the  two  threads  of  history  we  have  to  follow. 


At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  the  Jewish  nation 
was  approaching  its  end.  The  brilliant  episode  of  the 
Maccabees  had  ended  in  moral  failure  and  disillusionment. 
The  campaign  of  Pompey  in  the  east  had  destroyed  the 
reality  of  independence,  though  the  appearance  might  still 
remain.  Herod  the  Great,  during  his  long  reign  (37-4  B.C.), 
had  suppressed  disorder,  established  a  strong  rule,  created 
material  prosperity,  introduced  some  measure  of  Greco- 
Roman  civiUzation,  and  brought  his  kingdom  into  Hne  with 
the  rest  of  the  Empire.  He  had  partly  conciHated,  partly 
suppressed,  often  with  a  fierce  ruthlessness,  the  religious 
opposition.  The  closing  years  of  the  reign  of  the  fierce 
tyrant  had  been  marked  by  domestic  murders  and  public 
cruelty.  Augustus  is  reputed  to  have  said  that  it  would  be 
better  to  be  Herod's  sow  than  his  son.  The  Gospel  narra- 
tive has  preserved  for  us  an  account  of  the  massacre  of  the 
young  children  at  Bethlehem,  an  incident  entirely  harmo- 
nious with  the  character  of  the  king;  and  the  Jewish  historian 
has  told  us  how  Herod  burnt  ahve  the  Rabbis  who  had  in- 
stigated the  destruction  of  the  idolatrous  figure  of  an  eagle 
on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple.  When  his  death  came  it  let 
loose  the  forces  of  discontent  which  had  long  been  smouldering.^ 

Herod  died  4  B.C.,  shortly  before  the  Passover.  He  had 
left  to  Archelaus  Judaea  and  Samaria  with  the  title  of  king; 
but  it  was  necessary  that  the  Emperor  should  confirm  the 
will,  and  Archelaus,  followed  by  the  whole  family  of  Herod, 

^  Our  main  authority  for  the  history  of  the  period  contained  in  this 
chapter  is  Josephus  in  his  two  works  the  J  elvish  War  and  the  Antiquitfes. 
Unfortunately  for  the  greater  part  of  it,  his  information  was  somewhat 
scanty.  During  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great  he  was  able  to  draw  on  the 
history  of  Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  who,  as  Herod's  secretary  and  minister, 
had  ample  knowledge.  But  that  authority  almost  immediately  ceases,  and 
we  have  little  information  until  we  reach  the  period  of  Josephus's  own  life. 
It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  just  for  the  most  important  period  we  have  no 
fullness  of  detail. 


50  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

by  deputations  of  Jews  and  of  the  Greek  cities,  shortly  went 
to  Rome  to  plead  his  cause  before  Augustus. 

But  before  this  happened  disturbances  began.  Archelaus 
buried  his  father  with  great  pomp.  The  funeral  was  fol- 
lowed by  a  public  mourning  for  the  murdered  Rabbis,  who 
were  regarded  as  martyrs  for  the  law,  and  violent  disturb- 
ances in  which  over  3,000  were  slain  were  the  result.  At 
Pentecost,  after  Archelaus  had  started  for  Rome,  more 
severe  revolts  broke  out  throughout  the  whole  country. 
Those  at  Jerusalem  resulted  in  great  loss  of  life  and  much 
damage  to  the  newly  built  temple,  but  the  disturbances 
elsewhere  were  more  significant. 

In  Idumaea,  to  the  south,  2,000  of  Herod's  old  soldiers 
fought  against  Achiabus,  Herod's  cousin,  and  drove  him 
into  the  mountains.  In  Galilee  Judas,  the  son  of  the  robber 
Ezekias,  whom  Herod  had  killed,  seized  the  arsenal  at 
Sepphoris,  armed  his  followers,  and  spread  terror  through 
the  country.  He  was  apparently  aiming  at  being  king. 
In  Peraea  a  former  servant  of  Herod  called  Simon,  distin- 
guished for  his  height  and  personal  beauty,  "placed  a  dia- 
dem on  his  head."  He  led  a  wild  mob  across  the  Jordan, 
and  plundered  and  burnt  Herod's  palace  at  Jericho.  He 
was  attacked  and  defeated,  and  his  head  was  cut  off. 
Other  insurgents  in  Peraea  destroyed  Herod's  palace 
in  Betharamphtha  beyond  Jordan.  An  even  more  for- 
midable rebel  was  a  certain  Athronges,  a  shepherd  by  pro- 
fession, distinguished  for  personal  bravery  and  courage.  He 
too  called  himself  king,  and  with  his  four  brothers  harried 
Judaea  and  Samaria  with  robber  bands.  They  attacked 
and  cut  off  isolated  detachments  of  Roman  soldiers,  and  it 
was  long  before  the  last  of  them  submitted  to  Archelaus.^ 

1  We  have  a  reference  to  these  events  in  the  apocryphal  work  styled  the 
"Assumption  of  Moses":  "And  he  (Herod)  will  beget  sons  that  shall  suc- 
ceed him  and  shaU  reign  for  shorter  times.  Into  their  parts  shall  come  the 
strong,  and  a  mighty  king  of  the  West  who  shall  conquer  them  and  lead 
them  captive  and  shall  burn  part  of  their  temple  with  fire  and  shall  crucify 
them  around  their  colony"  {Assmnptio  Mosis,  vi.). 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  refers  to  the  reign  of  Archelaus,  and  the 
war  in  4  B.C.,  when  the  troops  left  under  the  charge  of  Sabinus  burnt  the 
cloisters  of  the  temple.  Archelaus  reigned  a  much  shorter  period  than  his 
father  (nine  years),  but  Herod  Antipas  reigned  forty-three  years,  and  Philip 


MESSIANIC   CLAIMANTS  51 

We  need  not  linger  over  the  story  of  the  suppression  of 
these  revolts,  but  a  few  words  must  be  said  as  to  their 
character. 

We  owe  our  knowledge  of  it  to  Josephus,  who,  with  a 
Gentile  audience  in  view,  systematically  conceals  or  under- 
estimates the  rehgious  element.  No  doubt  it  was  the 
mutiny  of  Herod's  soldiers  that  made  the  revolt  formidable, 
but  it  must  be  noticed  that  it  broke  out  at  the  feast  of 
Pentecost,  which  may  be  taken  as  evidence  that  the  under- 
lying cause  was,  as  always  in  Jewish  unrest,  rehgious.  The 
departure  to  Rome  of  all  the  leading  members  of  the  family 
of  Herod  seemed  to  give  an  opportunity  for  revolt,  the 
exactions  of  the  Roman  procurator  fanned  the  flames,  but 
we  have  here  a  renewed  sign  of  the  deep-seated  religious 
ferment  which  again  and  again  shows  itself  in  such  wild  out- 
bursts. The  affection  that  the  Sanhedrin  exhibited  for 
Ezekias,  a  robber  whom  Herod  had  put  to  death,  is  evidence 
that  Josephus  obscured  the  true  character  of  that  move- 
ment, which  must  have  been  religious.  His  son  Judas,  who 
would  preserve  the  traditions  —  even  if  he  were  not  the 
Judas  who  founded  the  sect  of  Zealots  —  Simon,  Athronges, 
were  not  merely  insurgents  who  aimed  at  royal  power,  but 
were  false  Chris ts;  and  if  Theudas,^  who  gave  himself  out 
to  be  someone,  belongs  to  this  period,  he  is  further  evidence 
of  the  same  spirit.  Jewish  unrest  would  not  have  been  as 
formidable  as  it  was  if  it  had  not  been  that  it  was  always 
inspired  by  rehgion. 

We  need  not  follow  the  history  of  the  events  in  Rome, 

thirty-seven,  so  that  it  is  most  probable  that  this  work  was  written  shortly 
after  the  death  of  Archelaus.  It  must  have  been  produced  at  a  time  when 
the  memory  of  the  assault  on  the  temple  was  fresh  in  the  writer's  mind. 
^  Acts  V.  36.  irpb  yap  tovtcov  tuv  rjijiepwi'  avkoTT)  GeySds  \tyuiv  dval  nva 
eavTov,  u)  irpoaeKXWpj  dvbpojv  apidp-os  ws  TerpaKoaicov.  6s  avrjptdr],  Kal  iravres 
oaoi  kireldovTo  avTih  SuXWr/ffap  Kal  kykvovro  els  ovSkv.  This  is  mentioned  as 
taking  place  before  the  rising  of  Judas  the  Galilaean.  There  are  three  alter- 
native explanations:  (i)  St.  Luke  has  made  a  mistake,  and  put  into  the  mouth 
of  Gamahel  a  reference  to  a  rebellion  which  took  place  some  years  later.  (2) 
That  this  was  one  of  the  disturbances  referred  to  by  Josephus,  Antt.,  xvii., 
285,  BJ.,  ii.,  55,  without  the  name  of  the  leader  being  mentioned.  (3)  That 
Theudas  was  the  second  name  of  some  other  leader.  See  Lewin,  Fasti  Sacri, 
903,  p.  124.    See  also  Hastings,  Bible  Dictionary,  iv.,  750. 

5 


52  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

where  the  fate  of  Palestine  had  to  be  decided  in  the  coun- 
cil of  Augustus,  although  the  detailed  account  of  imperial 
administration  that  we  have  is  full  of  interest. 

Augustus  substantially  confirmed  Herod's  will.  He  gave 
Samaria,  Judaea,  and  Idumaea  to  Archelaus.  He  was  to 
have  the  title  of  Ethnarch,  which  was  to  be  changed  to  that 
of  King  if  he  governed  virtuously  —  that  is,  if  he  kept  order 
and  a  fair  measure  of  contentment.  Antipas  obtained 
Galilee  and  Peraea;  Philip,  Trachonitis  and  the  country  to 
the  north.  The  Samaritans  had  a  quarter  of  their  taxes 
taken  ofT,  because  they  had  not  joined  in  the  revolt.  Joppa, 
Jerusalem,  Sebaste,  and  Caesarea  were  left  to  Archelaus, 
but  the  Greek  cities  Gaza,  Gadara,  and  Hippos  obtained 
their  freedom  and  were  joined  to  the  province.  Salome  had 
the  revenues  of  Jamnia,  Ashdod,  and  Phasaelis,  to  which 
Augustus  added  Herod's  palace  in  Ascalon,  but  her  pos- 
sessions were  under  the  government  of  Archelaus.  There 
were  many  other  legacies,  but  Augustus  gave  up  all  that 
was  left  to  him  with  the  exception  of  certain  personal 
memorials.  The  revenue  of  Archelaus  was  said  to  be  600 
talents,  of  Antipas  200,  of  Philip  100,  and  of  Salome  50. 

So  Archelaus  came  back  estabHshed  in  his  government. 
The  story  of  his  journey  was  well  known,  and  may  have 
supplied  the  incidents  for  the  parable  of  the  nobleman  who 
went  into  a  far  country  to  receive  for  himself  a  kingdom.^ 
We  are  told  that  his  citizens  hated  him  and  sent  an  embassy 
after  him,  saying,  "We  will  not  have  this  man  to  reign  over 
us."  He  was  a  man  who  demanded  full  return  without 
mercy:  "Thou  knowest  that  I  am  a  hard  man,  taking  up 
that  I  laid  not  down,  and  reaping  that  I  did  not  sow." 
His  final  words  were:  "Howbeit  these  mine  enemies,  which 
would  not  that  I  should  reign  over  them,  bring  them  forth 
and  slay  them  before  me." 

From  this  time  onwards  we  cease  to  have  any  detailed 
account  of  the  affairs  of  Judaea,  as  we  lose  the  guidance  of 
Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  and  we  have  not  yet  reached  the 
period  of  Josephus's  own  life,  so  we  have  no  information  as 
to  what  happened  when  Archelaus  returned.  We  may, 
however,    feel    certain    that    any    member    of    the    Jewish 

^  Luke  xLx.  12-27. 


ARCHELAUS  53 

embassy  to  Augustus  who  had  the  hardihood  to  return  to 
Palestine  would  pay  the  penalty  for  his  rashness. 

Of  the  reign  of  Archelaus  we  are  almost  devoid  of  in- 
formation. On  his  return  to  Judaea  he  accused  Joazar,  son 
of  Boethus  the  high  priest,  of  sedition  —  probably  of  having 
supported  the  embassy  sent  to  Rome  —  and  appointed  his 
brother  Eleazar  in  his  place.  Not  long  afterwards  Eleazar 
was  deposed  and  Jesus,  son  of  See,  appointed.  Like  other 
Herods,  Archelaus  showed  himself  a  builder.  He  restored 
the  royal  palace  at  Jericho  which  Simon  had  destroyed; 
he  extended  the  palm  groves,  diverting  the  water  from 
a  village  called  Neara  for  their  irrigation;  he  commemorated 
his  own  name  by  building  a  village  there  which  he  called 
Archelais.  He  outraged  the  religious  feehngs  of  the  nation 
by  marrying  Glaphyra,  the  daughter  of  Archelaus,  King  of 
Cappadocia,  and  widow  of  his  brother  Alexander,  by  whom 
she  had  had  three  children.  His  own  wife  was  still  living, 
and  Glaphyra  had  married  as  her  second  husband  Juba, 
King  of  Mauretania,  who  was  also  ahve.  But  it  was  the 
marriage  with  his  brother's  widow,  more  than  the  double 
adultery,  which  was  condemned. 

All  our  accounts  tell  us  that  Archelaus  was  the  most 
brutal  of  all  the  sons  of  Herod.  His  own  relations,  with  the 
exception  of  Philip,  had  been  vehemently  opposed  to  his 
appointment  as  his  father's  successor.  He  had  certainly 
shown  no  scruples  in  suppressing  the  insurrection  on  his 
succession,  and  the  butchery  of  3,000  unarmed  men  might 
lay  him  open  to  the  charge  of  ferocity.  He  had  succeeded 
in  stamping  out  the  rebellion  of  Athronges  and  his  brothers. 
He  had  probably  punished  with  severity  those  who  opposed 
his  succession.  Of  the  rest  of  his  reign  we  know  nothing. 
What  is  known  is  that,  after  enduring  him  for  nine  years, 
the  leading  men  of  Judaea  and  Samaria  could  no  longer  put 
up  with  his  tyranny  and  barbarity,  and  accused  him  to 
Augustus.  As  a  result  of  enquiry  the  Emperor  seems  to 
have  had  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  the  charge  and  refused 
even  to  communicate  with  Archelaus  personally.  He  sent  a 
message  to  him  by  his  steward,  who  himself  bore  the  same 
name,  to  summon  him  to  Rome,  and  banished  him  to 
Vienne  in  Gaul,  depriving  him  even  of  his  personal  wealth. 


54  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

Augustus  had  had  sufficient  experience  of  Herods.  Judaea 
was  now  brought  under  direct  Roman  rule,  being  sub- 
ordinate to  the  province  of  Syria,  but  under  a  procurator 
of  its  own.    This  took  place  in  a.d.  6. 

II 

To  organize  the  new  province  Augustus  sent  Publius 
Sulpicius  Quirinius.  He  was  an  excellent  example  of  the 
capable  man,  soldier  and  administrator  alike,  by  whom  the 
Emperor  was  served.  He  was  consul  in  the  year  12  B.C., 
shortly  afterwards  Proconsul  of  Asia.  He  had  already  held 
the  office  of  Governor  of  Syria,  and  had  conducted  a  suc- 
cessful war  against  the  mountain  tribes  of  Cilicia,  for  which 
he  had  obtained  the  ornaments  of  a  triumph.^  During  his 
tenure  of  the  office  the  first  census  had  been  held  in  Syria. 
Later  he  had  been  appointed  adviser  to  Gaius  Caesar  when 
he  held  a  high  command  in  the  East  against  Armenia, 
which  included  the  province  of  Syria.  He  therefore  came  to 
his  work  with  wide  experience  in  Eastern  affairs,  and  laid 
the  foundation  of  Roman  rule  in  Palestine  on  a  basis  which, 
so  far  as  we  know,  preserved  a  considerable  measure  of 
peace  until  the  disastrous  governorship  of  Pontius  Pilate. 

Special  regulations  were  made  for  the  government  of 
Judaea.  It  became  part  of  the  province  of  Syria,  but  was 
placed  under  a  procurator,  or  governor  of  the  third  class  of 
knightly  and  not  senatorial  rank.  It  was  advisable  that  the 
outward  signs  of  Roman  rule  should  be  inconspicuous.  So 
far  as  was  possible  the  country  was  given  self-government. 
There  were  no   Roman   legionary   troops,   only  auxiliaries, 

1  On  this  see  Tacitus,  Ami.,  iii.,  48;  Strabo,  xii.,  6,  5.  The  reasons  for 
thinking  that  Quirinius  was  twice  governor  of  Syria  are:  (i)  The  statement 
of  Tacitus  that  he  had  carried  on  war  against  the  Homonadenses  in  Cilicia 
before  his  post  in  attendance  on  Gaius.  This  he  could  only  have  done  had 
he  been  governor  of  a  province  with  military  power,  and  that  could  only 
have  been  Syria  (to  which  Cilicia  was  joined);  (2)  The  existence  of  a  muti- 
lated inscription  in  honour  of  someone  who  was  twice  governor  of  Syria, 
which  seems  most  suitably  to  fit  Quirinius  {C.I.L.,  xiv.,  3613).  The  date 
of  the  first  governorship  is  fixed  by  Mommsen,  in  a.d.  2-3,  but  Ramsay 
gives  reasons,  on  the  strength  of  two  inscriptions  of  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  for 
placing  it  earlier  (Ramsay,  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery  on  the  Trustworthi- 
ness of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  275-300;   Schiirer,  Geschichte,  i.,  322-324). 


JUDAEA   UNDER  THE   ROMANS  55 

and  some  of  these  had  formed  part  of  Herod's  old  army. 
The  administration  of  justice  was  mainly  in  the  hands  of  the 
native  courts.  The  chief  duty  of  the  procurator  was  finan- 
cial. He  was,  of  course,  responsible  for  the  maintenance 
of  law  and  order,  and  alone  had  the  power  of  life  and  death. 
The  exact  position  in  relation  to  the  Governor  of  Syria  is 
not  defined  for  us.  The  latter  had  the  supreme  military 
authority,  and,  if  need  be,  he  could  be  called  in  with  the 
legions  which  he  had  under  his  command.  He  could  en- 
quire into  complaints  of  misgovernment,  and,  although 
perhaps  only  when  acting  with  direct  instructions  from 
Rome,  he  could  in  an  emergency  regulate  the  affairs  of  the 
country.  So  we  find  that  the  Samaritans  appealed  to 
Vitellius,  the  Governor  of  Syria,  against  Pontius  Pilate, 
whom  he  sent  to  Rome  to  answer  his  accusers,  and  that 
VitelHus  shortly  afterwards  visited  Jerusalem  himself,  and 
showed  great  discretion  in  appeasing  the  Jews. 

The  Roman  province  of  Palestine  was  confined  to  the 
territories  of  Judaea  (which  now  always  included  the  district 
to  the  south,  called  Idumaea)  and  Samaria,  and  not  all  of 
that,  for  some  of  the  Greek  towns,  certainly  Gaza  and 
Ascalon,  were  independent,  and  directly  subject  to  the 
Governor  of  Syria.  The  residence  of  the  procurator  was 
Caesarea,  which  tended  more  and  more  to  become  a  heathen 
city.  Only  occasionally  at  the  time  of  the  feasts  and  for 
other  particular  purposes  would  he  visit  Jerusalem,  where 
the  great  palace-fortress  of  Herod  on  the  western  hill  would 
be  both  his  place  of  residence  and  also  the  praetorium, 
where  he  would  dispense  justice.  The  nucleus  of  the  forces 
under  his  command  was  formed  by  the  Sebasteni,  a  portion 
of  the  army  of  Herod,  who  numbered  about  3,000  —  500 
cavalry  and  five  cohorts  of  infantry.  These  were  stationed 
at  Caesarea.  There  was  normally  a  cohort  of  infantry  with 
some  mounted  troops  attached  in  the  castle  of  Antonia 
at  Jerusalem,  and  there  were  troops  at  Samaria.  Whether 
any  other  places  were  garrisoned  we  do  not  know. 

So  far  as  possible  the  Jews  were  allowed  to  live  after  their 
own  laws  —  that  is,  the  government  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
Sanhedrin,  composed  mainly  of  the  priestly  aristocracy,  with 
the  high  priest  as  president.    Within  the  limits  of  Judaean 


56  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

territory,  they  with  the  local  Sanhedrins  exercised  juris- 
diction over  all  Jews.  Except  possibly  for  certain  offences 
they  had  not  power  of  life  and  death,  and  therefore  a 
capital  sentence  imposed  by  them  had  to  be  confirmed 
by  the  procurator.  We  are  particularly  told  that  on  the 
question  of  violating  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  their 
jurisdiction  extended  even  to  Roman  citizens.  It  did  not, 
however,  extend  into  Samaria,  nor  into  any  Greek  cities, 
not  even  those  who  were  still  subject  to  the  procurator,  nor, 
except  for  the  case  just  mentioned,  over  Greek  or  Roman 
citizens.  The  power  which  Herod  had  claimed  of  appoint- 
ing and  removing  high  priests  was  exercised  by  the  proc- 
urator, but  the  worship  at  Jerusalem  was  protected  and 
encouraged,  and  everything  reasonable  was  done  to  avoid 
offending  Jewish  susceptibilities.  Augustus,  who  does  not 
appear  to  have  offered  sacrifice  in  the  temple  when  he 
visited  the  East  during  the  reign  of  Herod,  and  specially 
commended  Caius  because  he  did  not  sacrifice  during  his 
visit,  now  endowed  at  his  own  cost  a  daily  burnt  oft'ering  of 
an  ox  and  two  lambs,  and  both  he  and  the  Empress  Livia, 
and  other  members  of  his  household,  presented  cups  and 
vessels  for  the  drink  offering.  The  Jews  in  return  offered 
two  sacrifices  daily,  and  on  feast  days  hecatombs  for  the 
Emperor  and  Roman  people  at  the  cost  of  the  nation.  In 
the  synagogues,  also,  prayers  were  said  for  the  Emperor, 
and  the  fortunes  of  the  Roman  State  commemorated  so  far 
as  the  law  permitted.  Some  further  authority  over  the  wor- 
ship of  the  temple  was  gained  by  the  custody  of  the  sacred 
garments  of  the  high  priests,  which  were  preserved  with 
great  reverence  in  the  castle  of  Antonia,  and  only  given  out 
on  the  great  festivals. 

For  purposes  of  administration  —  probably  both  taxation 
and  justice  —  Judaea  was  divided  into  eleven  toparchies: 
Jerusalem,  Gophna,  and  Akrabatta  to  the  north;  Thamna, 
Lydda,  Emmaus,  and  Bethletepha  to  the  west;  Idumaca, 
Engaddi,  and  Herodeion  to  the  south;  and  Jericho  to  the 
east.  The  whole  district  of  Samaria  was  probably  under 
the  city  of  Sebaste,  and  was  governed  by  a  senate.  Whether 
at  this  period  it  was  divided  into  toparchies  we  do  not 
know.    The  remainder  of  the  province  was  made  up  of  the 


THE  TAXING  57 

territory  of  Greek  or  quasi-Greek  cities,  such  as  Caesarea, 
Antipatris,  Joppa,  and  Jamnia. 

The  danger  of  disturbance  between  the  Romans  and  Jews 
was,  as  it  appeared,  greatest  on  the  question  of  taxation. 
Up  to  this  time  the  Jews  had  paid  no  direct  taxes  to  the 
Empire,  although  certainly  at  some  periods  there  had  been 
tribute  imposed  upon  the  country  as  a  whole.  The  first 
step  in  the  organization  of  a  Roman  province  was  the  hold- 
ing of  a  census,  in  order  that  a  basis  might  be  provided  for 
taxation.  It  was  for  this  purpose,  in  particular,  that 
Quirinius  was  sent,  but  it  must  be  pointed  out  that  his  com- 
mission was  confined  to  Palestine,  but  included  the  whole  of 
Syria.^  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  occasion  coin- 
cided with  the  regular  census,  which  was  held,  so  far  as  we  can 
gather,  every  fourteen  years,  certainly  in  some  provinces  of  the 
Empire  and  perhaps  in  all.  There  is  nothing,  therefore,  that 
necessarily  prevents  a  previous  census  having  been  held 
some  fourteen  years  before  this  date  over  the  whole  of  Syria.^ 

Recent  discoveries  in  Egypt  have  provided  us  with  a  large 
amount  of  information  on  the  subject  of  a  Roman  census, 
and  we  have  considerable  knowledge  of  the  method  by 
which  it  was  carried  on.  No  doubt,  first  of  all,  a  proc- 
lamation was  issued  in  the  name  of  the  governor  or  the 
commissioners  appointed  for  the  purpose,  announcing  that 
a  census  would  be  held.  It  was  followed  apparently  by  one 
summoning  everyone  to  return  to  his  own  home  for  the 
purpose  of  being  enrolled.^    The  census  was  of  two  kinds  — 

1  Josephus  is  quite  clear  on  this  point  (Anil.,  xvii.,  355):  aTroTLixTja-oixevos 
re  ra  tv  Hvplq.  Kai  tov  'Apxf^aov  awo&waoiitvos  oIkov,  and  he  is  corroborated 
by  an  inscription  which  states  of  a  certain  Q.  Aemilius  Secundus  that  "jussu 
Quirini  censum  egi  Apamenae  civitatis  millium  hominum  civium  CXVII." 

2  On  the  census  see  especially  Mitteis  and  Wilcken,  Grundziige  und 
Chrestoniathie  der  Papyruskimde,  I.,  i.,  185;  ii.,  231;  Grenfell  and  Hunt 
Oxyrhynchus  Papyri,  ii.,  207  _^.;  Kenyon,  Catalogue  of  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Papyri  in  the  British  Museum,  ii.,  19;  Ramsay,  Was  Christ  born  at  Bethle- 
hem? and  Bearing  of  Recent  Discovery  on  the  Trustworthiness  of  the  New 
Testament;  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  i.,  508,  whose  bibliography  is  very  valuable; 
unfortunately,  he  is  so  determined  to  prove  St.  Luke  wrong  that  he  has 
made  many  unnecessarily  dogmatic  assertions  which  subsequent  discovery 
has  disproved.  We  owe  the  beginnings  of  new  light  to  Kenyon,  Classical 
Review,  1893,  p.  no.    The  whole  subject  is  still  very  difficult. 

'  Here  is  an  instance  (Papyrus  London  iii.,  n.  904,  p.  125,  lines  18^., 


58  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

the  census  of  persons  and  the  census  of  property.  In  the 
case  of  the  one  the  head  of  the  house  made  a  declaration 
stating  the  names  of  all  persons  belonging  to  his  house,  in 
the  other  he  enumerated  all  the  property  that  he  possessed. 
Both  alike  were  made  on  oath,  the  terms  of  which  were 
generally  joined  to  the  declaration.  On  the  personal  re- 
turns, which  included  everyone  over  fourteen,  the  poll  tax 
and  the  Habihty  to  military  service  (from  which  apparently 
all  Jews  were  exempt)  were  based;  on  the  property  returns 
the  income  tax  and  property  tax.  Such  probably  were  the 
general  characteristics  of  the  census;  what  particular  fea- 
tures may  have  characterized  it  as  held  in  Syria  and  Judaea 
we  cannot  say. 

This  census  caused  great  disturbances.  No  direct  taxa- 
tion had  ever  before  been  paid  to  the  Romans,  and  even  if 
there  had  been  a  census  under  Herod,  whatever  difficulties 
it  may  have  caused  it  did  not  seem  to  imply  foreign  do- 
minion. Now  it  was  different,  and  there  were  serious  signs 
of  resentment.  At  some  period  of  which  we  have  no  direct 
knowledge  Joazar,  son  of  Boethus,  had  been  restored  to  the 
position  of  high  priest,  apparently  through  a  definite  popu- 
lar demand.  His  influence  over  the  people  was  sufficient  to 
persuade  the  greater  number  to  submit.  The  returns  were 
made  and  the  taxes  paid.  As  it  was  at  their  own  request 
that  the  Jews  had  been  placed  under  direct  Roman  rule, 
it  was  characteristic  of  them  that  they  should  immediately 
resent  it.  Some  remained  obstinate.  In  particular  one 
Judas,  called  the  Galilaean,  and  a  Pharisee  of  the  name  of 
Zadok  became  leaders  of  a  revolt.  They  are  reported  to 
have  said  that  taxation  was  no  better  than  slavery;  they 
called  on  the  nation  to  make  an  effort  to  renew  their 
liberty,  and  said  that  failure  would  mean  the  honour  of 
martyrdom.  No  one  must  expect  divine  help  unless  they 
were  prepared  to  venture  their  lives  and  undertake  heroic 

edd.  Kenyon-Bell,  see  Mitteis  and  Wilcken,  op.  cit.,  I.,  ii.,  p.  235): 
Talos  OiitjStos  Ma^iMos  iivapxas  AiyvirTOV  Xtyet.  Trjs  Kar  oldav  aTroypa<l>fjs 
kpe(7T<j}(rr)s  avayKoiof  eariv  iva.<nv  rols  koB'  ^vriva  drrn-ore  airiav  airoSrjfxovaiv 
&ir6  T03V  vonuv  TrpoaayyeWeadai,  eTraveXOelv  eis  to.  kavTCOf  e^eoTia,  ti'd 
Kal  Tfjv  (Tvvr}dr]  olKovop.lav  ttjs  aTroypa4)rjs  TrXrjpuauaLU  Kal  ry  -rrpoariKoiKTig  avrols 
yeoipylq.  TrpoaKaprtpiiauaLv, 


THE  ZEALOTS  59 

acts.  The  immediate  result  was  unsuccessful.  Not  many 
joined  the  revolt.  It  was  suppressed,  and  Judas  was  killed. 
But  the  seed  sown  bore  evil  fruit.  Judas  is  styled  the 
founder  of  the  fourth  sect  of  the  Jews,  who  were  named  the 
Cananaeans  or  Zealots,  and  sometimes  also,  perhaps,  Gali- 
laeans.^  They  had,  said  Josephus,  the  same  opinions  as  the 
Pharisees,  but  added  to  them  an  unquenchable  attachment 
to  liberty,  and  the  principle  that  God  alone  was  their  Ruler 
and  Lord.  They  made  hght  of  death;  they  cared  nothing 
for  the  risk  .of  exposing  their  friends  or  relations  to  suffering. 
Neither  fear  nor  torture  would  make  them  call  any  man  lord. 

For  a  time  the  people  acquiesced.  Nothing  happened  to 
cause  irritation,  or  to  give  power  to  the  extreme  party. 
The  infection  remained  dormant.  But  later  misgovernment 
increased.  A  series  of  bad  procurators  gave  abundant 
occasion  for  discontent.  The  growth  and  development  of 
Christianity  added  to  the  sense  of  failure  and  exasperation. 
The  new  generation  became  adherents  of  the  doctrine  of 
violence,  and  the  terrible  disorders  of  the  last  days  of 
Judaism  began.  Josephus,  as  a  patriotic  Jew  and  a  close 
observer  of  his  country's  fate,  traces  the  beginning  of  all  its 
misfortunes  to  the  taxing  of  Quirinius  and  the  teaching  of 
Judas  of  Gahlee.  That  is  true  enough,  but  had  the  Romans 
exercised  a  wise,  strong,  and  good  government,  nothing  of 
what  happened  need  have  been  necessary.  But  Judaea 
became  the  prey  of  inferior  officials,  and  the  Emperors 
showed  less  and  less  wisdom  as  time  went  on  in  governing 
it.  Religious  fanaticism  would  have  been  powerless  if  it 
had  not  been  helped  by  oppressive  rule. 

Yet  the  issue  was  a  fundamental  one,  and  touched  the 
innermost  principles  of  Judaism.  The  strict  Jew  looked 
upon  the  theocracy  as  the  only  tolerable  form  of  govern- 
ment. He  would  have  no  foreigner  or  native  king  to  rule 
over  him;  but  for  many  centuries  he  had  had,  with  only  a 
short  period  of  independence,  to  submit  to  the  inevitable 

^  The  Galilaeans  are  mentioned  among  Jewish  heretics  (Justin,  Dialogue 
80,  and  Hegesippus  ap.  Eus.,  H.E.,  iv.,  22).  The  fact  that  this  name  was 
used  of  the  sect  implies  that  it  may  have  that  connotation  in  the  Gospels 
and  other  places.  The  accusation  of  being  a  Galilaean  would  imply  a  sus- 
picion of  treason.    The  word  "  Cananaean  "  is  the  Hebrew  form  of  ZrjXwTrjs. 


6o  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

force  of  circumstances.  There  were  two  possible  lines  of 
conduct.  There  were  those  who  were  content  if  they  had 
freedom  to  live  according  to  the  law,  and  to  have  their 
Uves  regulated  by  their  traditional  customs.  More  than 
this  they  did  not  ask  for.  Politics,  they  held,  did  not  con- 
cern them.  They  would  acquiesce  in  foreign  rule  provided 
they  had  religious  liberty.  Then  there  were  those  also  who 
never  willingly  acquiesced  in  any  authority.  In  the  Dias- 
pora the  Jew  had  learnt  indifference  to  politics;  he  could 
practise  his  religion  wherever  he  might  be;  many  of  those 
in  Palestine  were  equally  satisfied  with  a  pohcy  of  non-re- 
sistance; the  Essenes  had  always  adopted  a  quietist  at- 
titude. But  others  hardened.  We  shall  find  that  the  right 
relations  to  Rome  and  the  legitimacy  of  paying  tribute  were 
among  the  hard  questions  put  to  our  Lord.  The  spread  of 
Christianity  helped  to  increase  the  bitterness.  While  many 
of  the  more  pious  and  moderate  Jews  became  Christians, 
their  defection  seemed  to  the  more  fanatical  party  dis- 
loyalty. The  exactions  of  the  Roman  governors  and  their 
incapacity  for  dealing  with  such  a  turbulent  people  became 
intolerable.  The  two  issues  of  Judaism  became  clear.  The  one 
implied  a  religious  zeal  which  refused  to  recognize  the  re- 
straint of  reason  or  the  teaching  of  wisdom,  and  led  to  anarchy 
and  destruction;    the  other  ended  in   spiritual  sovereignty. 


Ill 

But  for  a  time  the  evil  issues  were  delayed.  The  first 
Roman  procurator  was  Coponius  (a.d.  6-9).  The  only  event 
that  is  recorded  under  his  rule  exhibited  the  bitter  feeling 
of  the  Samaritan  for  the  Jew.  It  was  the  custom  for  the 
gates  of  the  temple  to  be  opened  at  the  Passover  shortly 
after  midnight.  Some  Samaritans  took  advantage  of  this. 
They  came  secretly  by  night  and  brought  into  the  temple  a 
number  of  dead  bodies  which  they  threw  about  the  cloisters, 
thus  defiling  the  temple  and  preventing  the  Passover  from 
being  duly  celebrated.  Henceforth  the  Jews  excluded  the 
Samaritans  from  the  temple.  Coponius  was  succeeded  by 
Marcus  Ambibulus  (a.d.  9-12).  Under  him  died  Salome, 
Herod's  old  sister.    She  left  all  her  possessions  to  Livia,  the 


THE   ROMAN  PROCURATORS  6i 

wife  of  Caesar  —  Jamnia,  Phasaelis,  and  Archelais  which 
seems  to  have  come  into  her  possession  with  its  great  grove 
of  palm  trees.  This  would  not  affect  the  political  status  of 
these  towns.  Ambibulus  was  succeeded  by  Annius  Rufus 
(a.d.  12-15).  No  procurator  so  far  had  been  in  office  for 
more  than  two  or  three  years,  but  in  a.d.  14  Augustus  died, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Tiberius.  He  introduced  a  change 
which  was  designed  in  the  interest  of  the  provinces.  He 
cynically  observed  that  if  a  governor  held  office  only  a  short 
time  he  would  find  himself  obliged  to  plunder  severely  in 
order  to  get  the  wealth  he  desired;  if  he  had  a  longer  period 
of  office  the  province  would  not  have  to  satisfy  so  many 
claims  and  exactions  would  be  less  frequent.^  During  the 
whole  of  his  reign  he  only  appointed  two  governors  for 
Palestine,  Valerius  Gratus  (15-26)  and  Pontius  Pilate  (26- 
36).  About  this  time  a  petition  was  received  by  the  Emperor 
from  the  provinces  of  Palestine  and  Syria  asking  for  a  reduc- 
tion of  tribute.  Whether  it  was  granted  we  do  not  know. 
During  these  years  there  had  been  constant  change  in  the 
office  of  high  priest.  Archelaus  had  followed  the  arbitrary 
ways  of  his  father,  and  the  Roman  procurators  had  claimed 
the  same  privileges.  Archelaus  had  removed,  as  we  have 
seen,  Joazar,  son  of  Boethus.  He  w^as  unpopular  with  the 
stricter  Jews  because  he  had  taken  the  place  of  Matthias, 
who  was  accused  of  s^onpathy  with  the  Rabbis  who  had 
been  burnt  to  death  by  Herod  the  Great,  while  Archelaus 
complained  that  he  had  helped  the  insurgents.  In  his  place 
was  appointed  Eleazar  his  brother.  He  in  no  long  time  was 
removed  and  Jesus,  son  of  See,  was  appointed  in  his  place. 
How  long  he  remained  in  that  position  we  do  not  know. 
When  Archelaus  was  exiled  we  find  Joazar  again  in  office, 
a  position  he  had  obtained  by  popular  demand.  He  did 
good  service  to  the  Romans  by  persuading  the  people  to 
acquiesce  in  the  imposition  of  tribute,  but  this  made  him 
unpopular,  so  Quirinius  appointed  in  his  place  Annas,  the 
son  of  Sethi.  He  was  the  richest  and  most  powerful  mem- 
ber of  the  temple  aristocracy.  He  held  office  for  nine  years, 
and  six  of  his  sons  and  his  son-in-law  Caiaphas  all  occupied 

^  He  is  reported  to  have  said  that  it  is  better  to  leave  a  gorged  fly  on  a 
sore  than  to  drive  it  off  {Antt.,  xviii.,  171-176). 


62  PALESTINE,    CIVIL   AND   RELIGIOUS 

that  office.  The  family  apparently  obtained  their  wealth 
through  the  possession  of  booths  or  shops  called  the  ''booths 
of  the  sons  of  Annas,"  and  the  monopoly  that  they  pos- 
sessed of  the  sale  of  all  the  articles  for  sacrifice.  These 
booths,  or  some  of  them,  are  said  to  have  been  erected  in 
the  temple  courts.  The  wealth  and  avarice  of  the  family 
aroused  bitter  resentment.  "Woe  to  the  house  of  Annas! 
Woe  to  their  serpent-like  hissings!"  is  a  saying  preserved  in 
Jewish  tradition.  When  disorder  and  violence  increased 
and  the  Jewish  people  became  exasperated,  it  was  the  house  of 
Annas  that  was  conspicuous  for  its  violence  and  insolence.^ 

For  some  reason  not  recorded  Valerius  Gratus  deprived 
Annas  of  the  high-priesthood.  Probably  he  felt  that  he  was 
too  powerful.  The  next  three,  Ismail,  son  of  Phiabi,  Elea- 
zar,  son  of  Annas,  and  Simon,  son  of  Kamithos,  held  office 
for  little  more  than  a  year  each;  then  Valerius  appointed 
Joseph,  called  Caiaphas,  who  was  son-in-law  of  Annas.  He 
remained  in  office  eighteen  years  (a.d.  18-36),  and  has  at- 
tained an  evil  name  in  history.  He  was  probably  a  man  of 
little  force  of  character,  supple  enough  to  keep  on  good 
terms  with  both  the  Roman  rulers  and  his  powerful  father- 
in-law.  The  picture  which  is  presented  to  us  at  this  period 
of  the  highest  and  most  sacred  office  of  Judaism,  incomplete 
though  it  is,  is  sufficient.  It  is  not  pleasing,  and  no  doubt 
was  one  of  the  causes  why  the  sacrificial  system  ceased  to 
have  any  real  hold  on  the  religious  life  of  the  people. 

In  the  year  26  Valerius  Gratus  was  succeeded  by  Pontius 
Pilate.  He  was  appointed  under  the  influence  of  Sejanus, 
and  Sejanus  is  said  to  have  dishked  the  Jews.  It  is  prob- 
able, therefore,  that  his  conduct  was  the  result  not  merely  of 
cruelty  and  incapacity,  but  of  pohcy.  Certainly  he  suc- 
ceeded in  obtaining  an  evil  reputation.  He  was  said  to  be 
inflexible,  merciless,  and  obstinate.  We  are  told  of  his 
corruption,  his  insolence,  his  robberies,  his  outrages,  his 
threats,  the  constant  succession  of  indiscriminate  murders, 
his  intolerable  and  barefaced  cruelty. ^  The  language  ap- 
pears exaggerated,  but  incidents  that  are  related  show  con- 
siderable justification  for  what  is  said. 

^  On  the  sons  of  Annas  see  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  iii.,  5; 
Derenbourg,  p.  465;   Pesikta  S7a.  ^  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Caiuni,  38. 


PONTIUS   PILATE  63 

It  had  always  been  the  custom  that  the  Roman  troops 
should  remove  the  images  of  the  emperors  from  their 
standards  when  they  entered  Jerusalem  out  of  respect  for 
the  prejudices  of  the  people.  Pilate,  with  obvious  dehbera- 
tion,  departed  from  this  practice,  and,  when  the  troops 
arrived  from  Caesarea  to  Jerusalem  to  take  up  their  winter 
quarters,  they  brought  in  by  night  the  standards  with  the 
images  still  on  them.  As  soon  as  this  was  known  great 
numbers  of  Jews  came  down  to  Caesarea  and  tried  to  per- 
suade him  to  remove  them.  He  refused,  pleading  respect 
for  the  Emperor.  They  remained  firm,  so  he  determined  to 
try  force.  He  made  secret  preparations,  summoned  them 
before  him  in  the  open  ground  outside  the  city,  and  at  a 
signal  from  him  they  were  surrounded  by  armed  soldiers. 
He  threatened  them  with  death;  but  their  conduct  discon- 
certed him.  They  threw  themselves  on  the  ground,  bared  their 
necks,  and  said  that  they  would  gladly  die  rather  than  allow 
the  wisdom  of  their  laws  to  be  transgressed.  Their  inflexi- 
bility won,  and  the  images  were  brought  back  to  Caesarea. 

He  next  attempted  to  benefit  the  city.  He  constructed 
or  repaired  an  aqueduct  to  bring  water  from  a  distance  of 
twenty-five  miles.  No  doubt  this  was  one  of  the  aqueducts 
from  Solomon's  pools.  To  carry  this  out  he  made  use  of 
the  temple  treasure.  The  Jews  were  again  displeased,  and 
demanded  with  clamours  and  threats  that  he  should  leave 
off  his  designs.  He  lost  his  temper,  and  sent  a  number  of 
soldiers  among  the  people  armed  with  clubs.  These  at- 
tacked with  great  violence,  making  no  distinction  between 
the  guilty  and  innocent.  They  killed  some  and  wounded 
others,  and  suppressed  the  disturbance. 

Another  instance  of  his  cruelty  is  mentioned  in  St.  Luke's 
Gospel.  Some  Galilaeans  —  perhaps  the  word  means  merely 
natives  of  Galilee,  perhaps  followers  of  Judas  of  Gahlee  — 
had  caused  or  taken  part  in  disturbances  at  the  feast.  Pilate 
had  again  repressed  disorder  relentlessly,  and  in  the  im- 
pressive words  of  the  Gospels  he  had  mingled  their  blood 
with  the  sacrifices.  They  had  probably  been  butchered  in 
the  temple.^ 

^  Luke  xiii.  1-5. 


64  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

A  letter  of  Agrippa's  quoted  by  Philo  gives  another 
instance  of  Pilate's  tactlessness  and  of  the  difSculty  of 
governing  the  Jews.  He  had  put  up  in  the  palace  of  Herod 
at  Jerusalem,  now  the  official  residence  of  the  governor, 
golden  shields  in  honour  of  Tiberius.  This  might  seem 
sufficiently  harmless.  There  were  no  images  of  any  sort 
on  them.  They  bore  only  the  dedication  and  the  name  of 
the  Emperor.  But  the  Jews  resented  this,  and  associated 
with  them  in  their  protest  the  four  sons  of  Herod  and  other 
members  of  his  family.  Both  sides  were  obstinate.  At 
length  the  Jews  wrote  to  Tiberius,  who  ordered  the  shields 
to  be  placed  in  the  temple  of  Augustus  at  Caesarea,  thus 
preserving,  as  Agrippa  points  out,  both  the  honour  of  the 
Emperor  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Jewish  laws.^ 

It  was  an  event  in  Samaria  which  finally  brought  his 
governorship  to  a  close.  A  religious  impostor  had  collected 
together  a  crowd  of  people  on  Mount  Gerizim  by  promising 
to  reveal  the  place  where  Moses  had  buried  the  sacred  ves- 
sels. They  assembled  in  great  numbers,  but  when  they  at- 
tempted to  go  up  the  mountain  they  were  attacked  by  a 
body  of  horsemen  sent  by  Pilate.  They  were  dispersed, 
many  were  slain,  many  taken  prisoners,  and  all  the  more 
important  of  them  were  executed  by  Pilate's  orders.  The 
Samaritan  senate  sent  an  embassy  to  Vitellius,  the  governor 
of  Syria,  complaining  of  Pilate.  They  had  had,  they  said, 
no  intention  of  revolting  against  Rome.  Vitellius  sent  a 
friend  of  his  own,  Marcellus,  to  act  as  procurator,  and 
ordered  Pilate  to  proceed  to  Rome  to  answer  for  his  con- 
duct to  Tiberius.  Before  he  arrived  there  Tiberius  was 
dead.    We  know  nothing  of  his  subsequent  history.' 

It  is  noticeable  that  two  of  these  incidents  are  only  re- 
ferred to  in  incidental  allusions,  and  they  suggest  that  there 
were  others  which  have  not  been  recorded.  During  all  this 
period  the  record  of  Josephus  is  incomplete.  Pilate  was 
certainly  unfit  to  govern  Judaea.  He  was  tactless,  un- 
sympathetic, obstinate,  and  weak;  like  other  weak  men,  he 
was  cruel  and  relentless.    At  the  same  time  the  difficulty  of 

*  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Caium,  loc.  cit. 

2  According  to  Cassiodorus  he  committed  suicide:  "His  coss.  Pilatus 
in  multas  incidens  calamitates  propria  se  manu  interfecit." 


THE   TETRARCHY   OF   PHILIP  65 

his  position  is  obvious.  The  Jews  were  turbulent,  suspi- 
cious, intolerant,  and  the  impression  is  left  on  our  minds 
that  they  were  ceasing  to  be  amenable  to  reason,  that  self- 
ishness and  fanaticism  were  rapidly  getting  the  upper  hand, 
and  that  all  the  material  was  being  prepared  which  would 
burst  out  into  flame  at  the  great  catastrophe. 

IV 

The  remainder  of  Herod's  dominions  were  divided  into 
the  two  tetrarchies  of  Philip  and  Herod  Antipas  and  the 
confederation  of  the  Greek  towns  of  the  Decapolis. 

The  tetrarchy  of  Philip,  the  most  northern  part  of  the 
country,  was  formed  of  the  districts  of  Trachonitis,  Aura- 
nitis,  Batanea,  Gaulonitis,  and  Ituraea.  It  was  often  spoken 
of  as  Trachonitis  or,  as  by  St.  Luke,  Trachonitis  and 
Ituraea.  It  was  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  territory  of 
Lysanias  and  by  Damascus,  on  the  east  by  the  kingdom  of 
the  Nabataeans,  on  the  south  by  Peraea  and  the  cities  of 
the  Decapolis,  on  the  west  by  the  River  Jordan  and  by 
Galilee.  Trachonitis  was  the  district  in  the  north-east,  and 
received  its  name  and  its  character  from  the  rugged  lava  of 
which  it  was  composed.  Auranitis,  the  modern  Hauran,  was 
the  fertile  plateau  south  of  Damascus,  through  which  ran 
then,  as  now,  the  pilgrim  road  by  which  the  Babylonian 
Jews  came  to  Jerusalem  as  the  Mohammedan  now  goes  to 
Mecca.  Batanea  occupied  the  low-lying  valleys  to  the 
southeast  in  the  upper  waters  of  the  Yarmuk.  Gaulonitis — 
the  modern  Jaulan  —  lay  on  the  east  side  of  the  Jordan 
northwards  from  the  Sea  of  Gahlee.  Ituraea  lay  on  the 
southern  side  and  eastern  slopes  of  Mount  Hermon.  The 
whole  country  was  rich  and  well  watered,  the  soil  volcanic, 
the  rainfall  sufficient.^  Form_erly  the  territory  of  Zenodotus, 
a  robber  chief  defeated  by  Herod,  it  had  borne  an  evil 
reputation.  The  rocky  and  inaccessible  defiles  of  Tracho- 
nitis had  been  the  lurking-place  of  bands  of  robbers;  the 
more  open  country  was  overrun  by  the  desert  Arabs;  so 
great  was  the  insecurity  that  the  people  dwelt  not  in  cities, 

^  On  the  character  of  this  trans- Jo rdanic  region  see  G.  A.  Smith,  His- 
torical Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  p.  609. 


66  PALESTINE,  CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

but  in  the  safer  seclusion  of  caves,  in  which  the  district 
abounded.  Augustus  had  given  it  to  Herod,  who  imme- 
diately attacked  the  evil  with  all  his  fierce  energy.  He 
waged  continuous  war  against  robbers  and  Arabs  alike.  He 
took  steps  to  secure  a  settled  and  industrious  population. 
"The  inhabitants  of  Trachonitis,"  says  Josephus,  "after 
Caesar  had  added  the  country  to  Herod,  were  no  longer 
able  to  rob,  but  were  forced  to  plough  the  land  and  live 
quietly,  which  was  a  thing  they  did  not  like."^  While 
Herod  was  in  Rome  they  took  advantage  and  revolted, 
and  Herod  inflicted  a  bloody  punishment  upon  them.  In 
order  to  pacify  the  country  he  settled  3,000  Idumaeans  in 
it,  transferring  the  robbers  to  Idumaea.  At  a  later  date 
he  established  in  Batanea  a  colony  of  Babylonian  Jews.  A 
certain  Zamaris  had  come  out  of  Babylonia  with  a  large 
following,  men  trained  in  Parthian  fashion  to  shoot  arrows  on 
horseback.  Herod  granted  them  land  free  of  taxes.  They 
built  strongholds  and  villages,  and  guarded  the  pilgrims' 
way  south  of  Damascus.  The  country  thus  secured  and 
settled  speedily  attracted  a  large  Jewish  immigration,  and 
cultivation  spread.  When  Zamaris  died  he  was  succeeded 
by  a  son,  Jacimus,  and  he  by  one  whose  name,  Philip, 
records  the  friendly  relations  which  existed  with  the  Te- 
trarch.  These  Babylonian  Jews  provided  the  ruler  with  a 
bodyguard,  and  protected  the  country. 

Thus  were  laid  the  foundations  of  the  well-being  of  this 
region.  New  towns  sprang  up,  the  inhabitants  left  their 
caves  and  retreats,  the  land  —  a  rich  corn  district  —  was 
cultivated.  The  frontier  towards  the  desert  was  guarded 
by  the  Nabataeans,  who  were  obliged  to  show  respect 
towards  the  Roman  peace.  Then,  when  Trajan  guarded 
and  fortified  the  frontier  by  the  establishment  of  the  prov- 
ince of  Arabia,  the  great  period  of  prosperity  began. 

For  thirty-seven  years  (4  B.C.  to  a.d.  34)  Trachonitis  was 
governed  by  Philip  with  wisdom  and  moderation.  Unlike 
the  other  sons  of  Herod,  he  was  neither  cruel  nor  avaricious 
nor  tyrannical.  One  characteristic  of  his  father  he  inherited 
—  like  him,  he  was  a  builder.  At  Paneas,  where  the  Jordan 
in  full  stream  bursts  forth  from  a  great  cave  and  rushes 
^  Josephus,  AntL,  xvi.,  271. 


THE   CHARACTER   OF  PHILIP  67 

down  in  cataracts  to  the  valley,  a  place  of  great  beauty  and 
natural  sanctity,  where  Herod  had  built  a  white  marble 
temple  in  honour  of  Augustus,  on  the  southern  slopes  of 
Hermon,  he  founded  Caesarea  Philippi;^  further  south,  at 
the  head  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  he  transformed  the  village 
of  Bethsaida  into  a  city,  and  named  it  Julias  in  honour  of 
the  daughter  of  Augustus.  He  hved  on  friendly  terms  with 
the  two  Emperors,  Augustus  and  Tiberius,  and  was  the 
first  member  of  his  family  to  place  their  effigies  on  his 
coins,  a  clear  sign  that  a  large  portion  of  the  population  was 
heathen.^  He  married  Salome,  his  niece,  the  daughter  of 
Herodias  and  his  brother  Herod.  His  reign  was  as  un- 
eventful as  it  appears  to  have  been  happy,  and  Josephus 
concludes  his  account  of  him  with  the  following  panegyric: 

"He  had  shown  himself  a  man  of  moderation  and  quiet- 
ness in  his  government.  He  lived  regularly  in  his  own 
country,  and  made  constant  progresses  through  it  with  a 
small  retinue,  and  always  was  accompanied  on  his  journeys 
by  the  tribunal  on  which  he  administered  justice.  When- 
ever anyone  met  him  who  appealed  for  his  assistance,  he 
made  no  delay,   but  had   the   tribunal   at   once   set  down 

1  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography,  p.  473:  "Paneas  lies  scarcely  an 
hour  to  the  north  of  Tell-el-Kadi.  From  the  latter  you  pass  a  well-watered 
meadow,  covered  by  trees,  and  then  a  broad  terrace  with  oaks,  like  an  Eng- 
lish park,  till  you  come  to  the  edge  of  a  deep  gorge,  through  which  there 
roars  a  headlong  stream,  half  stifled  by  bush.  An  old  Roman  bridge  takes 
you  over,  and  then  through  a  tangle  of  trees,  brushwood,  and  fern  you  break 
into  sight  of  a  high  cliff  of  limestone  reddened  by  the  water  that  oozes  over 
its  face  from  the  iron  soil  above.  In  the  cliff  is  a  cavern.  Part  of  the  upper 
rock  has  fallen,  and  from  the  debris  of  boulders  and  shingles  below  there 
bursts  and  bubbles  along  a  line  of  30  feet  a  full-born  river.  The  place  is 
a  very  sanctuary  of  waters,  and  from  time  immemorial  men  have  drawn 
near  it  to  worship.  As  you  stand  within  the  charm  of  it  —  and  this  is  a 
charm  not  uncommon  in  the  Lebanon  —  you  understand  why  the  early 
Semites  adored  the  Baalim  of  the  subterranean  waters  even  before  they 
raised  their  gods  to  heaven,  and  thanked  them  for  the  rain." 

2  On  the  coins  of  Philip,  see  Hill,  Catalogue,  etc.,  Palestine,  xcvii.,  228, 
plate  xxiv.,  19-21;  Madden,  Coins  of  the  Jeivs,  123-127.  "The  effigy  of 
the  Roman  Emperor  on  these  coins  was  a  grave  infringement  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  But  it  has  been  suggested  that  this  infraction  took  place  at  some  dis- 
tance from  the  centre  of  religion,  in  a  town  inhabited  for  the  most  part  by 
Greeks."  The  coins  were  probably  struck  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  as  on  one 
in  the  British  Museum  PhiUp  describes  himself  as  /crtor^s  (founder). 

6 


68         PALESTINE,   CIVIL    AND    RELIGIOUS 

wherever  he  might  happen  to  be,  and,  sitting  upon  it,  heard 
the  complaint.  The  guilty  when  convicted  he  punished, 
those  unjustly  accused  he  acquitted."  ^ 

He  died  at  Julias,  and  was  buried  with  great  pomp  in  the 
tomb  he  had  built  for  himself  (a.d.  34). 

Herod  Antipas  ruled  over  Galilee  and  Peraea.  Galilee, 
divided  into  Upper  and  Lower,  stretched  from  the  great 
gorge  of  the  Litany  to  the  southern  edge  of  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  and  from  the  Jordan  and  the  Sea  of  Galilee  to 
the  territory  of  the  maritime  cities  Ptolemais  and  Tyre. 
Upper  Galilee  was  a  region  of  fertile  tablelands,  more  than 
2,000  feet  above  the  sea,  sloping  down  from  Lebanon; 
Lower  Galilee  a  region  of  broad  valleys  with  low  hills 
between  them,  ending  in  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  It  was 
a  rich  and  fertile  land.  Its  people  were  brave  and  hardy, 
and  distinguished  in  the  Great  War  for  their  loyalty,  their 
patriotism,  and  their  endurance. 

"These  two  Galilees,"  says  Josephus,  "of  so  great  large- 
ness and  encompassed  with  so  many  nations  of  foreigners, 
have  always  shown  great  resolution  in  war.  The  country 
has  never  suffered  from  want  of  courage  in  its  men  or  small- 
ness  of  population,  for  it  is  rich  and  fruitful  and  abounds  in 
every  sort  of  trees.  The  whole  is  well  cultivated,  and  no 
part  lies  idle.  Its  cities  and  villages  are  very  numerous 
and  thickly  populated." 

He  estimates  the  population  in  his  day  at  3,000,000,  per- 
haps an  exaggerated  computation.^ 

The  district  of  Peraea  was  that  part  of  the  territory 
beyond  Jordan  which  was  situated  between  the  River  Arnon 
on  the  south  and  the  Yarmuk  on  the  north,  except  such 
portions  as  formed  the  territory  of  the  Greek  cities.  On 
the  east  it  was  bounded,  harassed,  or  defended  by  the 
kingdom  of  the  Nabataeans.  An  elevated  and  healthy 
district,  it  was,  says  Josephus,  compared  with  Galilee, 
uncultivated  and  thinly  populated,  and  not  suitable  for 
growing  the  more  delicate  fruits.    Yet  it  was  not  unfertile. 

*  Josephus,  Antiquities,  xviii.,  106-108. 

2  Josephus  gives  a  full  description  of  Galilee  in  B.J.,  iii.,  35-43-  For  a 
description  of  the  scenery  see  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  ciL,  chap,  xx.,  p.  411. 


HEROD    ANTIPAS  69 

"It  has  a  moist  soil,"  he  says,  "and  produces  all  kinds  of 
fruits.  Its  plains  are  planted  with  trees,  especially  the  olive, 
the  vine,  and  the  palm.  It  is  well  watered  with  torrents 
from  the  mountains  and  springs  that  never  fail."  It  is  a 
land  of  fruit  and  forest  trees,  of  flocks  and  herds. ^ 

Over  these  two  districts  Herod  Antipas  ruled  for  forty- 
three  years  (4  B.C.  to  a.d.  39).  He  was,  like  his  father, 
violent  and  tyrannical,  crafty  —  our  Lord  designates  him  as 
"that  fox"  —  and  fond  of  luxury,  but  he  was  less  energetic. 
He  succeeded  in  governing  his  tetrarchy  with  a  reasonable 
amount  of  success.  A  founder  of  cities,  he  restored  the 
ruined  Sepphoris,  which  he  named  Autocratoris.  Later  it 
became  Diocaesarea.  On  the  eastern  side  of  Jordan  he 
fortified  the  old  settlement  of  Betharamphtha,  which  was 
named  Livias  and  Julias  after  the  wife  of  Augustus.  Later 
he  built,  as  the  capital  of  his  tetrarchy,  Tiberias,  named  after 
the  Emperor.  He  selected  the  most  beautiful  and  attrac- 
tive spot  on  the  shores  of  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  near  the  hot 
springs  of  Emmaus.  But  he  encountered  unexpected  diffi- 
culties. A  portion  of  the  site  was  discovered  to  have  been 
a  graveyard,  and  the  stricter  Jews  refused  —  at  any  rate 
for  some  time  —  to  live  there.  So  in  order  to  secure  suffi- 
cient population  he  collected  men  of  every  degree,  not  only 
from  Galilee  but  other  countries,  tempting  them  to  settle 
by  building  them  excellent  houses.  It  was  a  city  of  great 
beauty,  built  in  the  Greek  fashion,  with  fine  colonnades 
and  public  buildings,  with  marble  statues,  in  particular 
with  the  largest  synagogue  in  Gahlee.  The  palace  of 
Herod  himself,  which  he  built  there,  was  of  great  magnifi- 
cence and  rich  in  treasure.^ 

Of  the  events  of  Herod's  fife  we  have  for  some  time  little 
record.  He  had  married  a  daughter  of  Aretas,  King  of  the 
Nabathaeans  —  a  politic  action,  for  friendly  relations  with 
the  Arabs  were  most  necessary  for  the  well-being  of  the 
country.     He  lived  with  her  many  years,  but  once,  on  his 

1  On  Peraea  see  B.J.,  iii.,  44-47;   G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  chaps,  xxiv-xxvii. 

2  On  Tiberias  see  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  447^.;  Schiirer,  Geschidde,'^  ii.,  216; 
Josephus,  Vita,  65,  68,  85^.,  277.  Of  the  palace  it  is  said,  t6p  oIkov  t6v 
iird  'HpuSov  tov  rerpapxav  KaraaKtvaad'evTa  ^c^oiv  ^,op<l)a%  txovra  tuip  vojiosv 
ovTOis  TL  Karaa-Keva^eLf  dirayopevoi'TUP.     Its  gilded  roof  and  rich  furniture  are 


70  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

way  to  Rome,  about  a.d.  29,  he  stayed  with  his  brother 
Herod,  the  son  of  the  second  Mariamne.  This  Herod  had 
married  his  niece  Herodias,  daughter  of  Aristobulus,  who 
was  a  woman  at  this  time  between  thirty  and  forty.  She 
appears,  as  her  career  shows,  to  have  been  ambitious  and 
unscrupulous,  mahcious  and  revengeful.  With  her  Antipas 
fell  in  love.  She  persuaded  him  to  promise  to  marry  her, 
and  to  divorce  his  own  wife,  the  daughter  of  Aretas.  The 
latter  discovered  his  intentions.  She  managed  to  arrange 
that  she  should  be  sent  to  Machaerus,  the  fortress  of  Herod 
on  the  southern  boundary  of  his  kingdom,  and  from  there 
escaped  to  her  father.  This  was  the  beginning  of  strained 
relations  between  Herod  and  Aretas.  A  boundary  dispute 
aggravated  the  irritation,  and  a  war  followed  between  the 
two  countries,  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  authority  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  Neither  king  took  the  field  in  person,  and 
the  army  of  Antipas,  it  is  said  owing  to  treachery,  was 
defeated  about  a.d.  32.  It  is  possible  that  this  is  the  in- 
cident to  which  our  Lord  refers  when  he  speaks  of  a  ruler 
going  to  war  without  counting  the  cost.  "What  king,  as 
he  goeth  to  encounter  another  king  in  war,  will  not  sit  down 
first  and  take  counsel  whether  he  is  able  with  10,000  to 
meet  him  that  cometh  against  him  with  20,000?"^  Aretas 
probably  had  been  the  aggressor.  He  was  clearly,  to  a 
certain  extent,  the  wronged  party,  and  Antipas,  we  know, 
was  of  an  indolent  and  unenterprising  character.  Aretas 
had,  therefore,  been  guilty  of  violating  the  Roman  peace, 
and  Antipas  wrote  to  Tiberius  to  complain. 

Tiberius  did  not  interfere  at  once,  for  circumstances  in 
the  east  compelled  delay. 2  There  were  difficulties  in 
Parthia  which  threatened  to  be  serious,  and  thither  first 
Vitellius,  the  Governor  of  Syria,  had  to  turn;  the  Roman 
army  was  concentrated  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  and 

mentioned:  Xuxfla-L  8'  rjaav  KopivdLai  ravra  ku  rpcnre^ai  twv  ^aaiXiKuv  Kal 
acrrj/jLov  apyvpiov  (ttoBhos  iKavos.  Josephus  showed  great  energy  in  trying  to 
save  this.  The  S)Tiagogue  was  a  large  building:  ds  riiv  Tvpocrtvxhv  ulyiarov 
o'iKrifj.a  Kai  ttoXvv  6x>^ov  eiridk^aadai.  dwafievov.  The  hot  springs  are  mentioned 
by  Pliny,  N.H.,  v.,  15. 

1  Lk.  xiv.  31. 

^  On  the  dates  of  these  events,  which  have  some  bearing  on  the  Gospel 
chronology,  see  the  Note  on  Chronology. 


HEROD  AND  ARETAS  71 

Herod,  as  an  allied  ruler,  was  summoned  with  his  troops. 
He  was  present  when  the  treaty  of  peace  was  made  between 
Rome  and  Artabanus,  King  of  Parthia  (a.d.  36).  The  two 
parties  met,  as  was  customary,  in  the  middle  of  a  bridge 
thrown  across  the  Euphrates;  there  Herod,  emulating  the 
magnificence  of  his  father,  had  erected  a  sumptuous  tent, 
and  entertained  the  Parthian  King  and  the  Roman  Pro- 
consul at  a  great  banquet.  In  order  to  conciliate  himself 
also  with  Tiberius,  he  sent  special  messengers  with  the  news 
of  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty,  and  these  arrived  before  the 
official  messengers  sent  by  Vitellius.  This  may  have  pleased 
the  Emperor,  but  it  irritated  (as  Herod  afterwards  dis- 
covered) the  Governor,  and  the  Governor  outlived  the  Em- 
peror. 

When  the  affairs  of  Parthia  were  settled  the  Syrian 
legions  were  free  for  other  work,  and  Vitellius  was  directed 
to  punish  Aretas.  As  he  was  annoyed  with  Antipas  he 
did  not  hurry.  With  an  army  consisting  of  two  legions  and 
auxihary  troops  he  began  his  march  through  Judaea,  but 
the  Jews  requested  him  not  to  do  so,  as  the  land  would  be 
contaminated  by  the  images  on  the  standards.  He  readily 
complied  with  their  request,  and  sent  his  army  to  the  Plain 
of  Esdraelon,  while  he  went  to  Jerusalem,  offered  sacrifices, 
and  arranged  other  matters.  While  he  was  there  a  mes- 
senger came  informing  him  of  the  death  of  Tiberius  (March 
16,  A.D.  37),  and  he  immediately  gave  up  the  expedition. 

The  Emperor's  death  was  to  have  an  unfortunate  in- 
fluence on  the  career  of  Herod.  Agrippa,  a  son  of  Aristo- 
bulus,  who  had  been  in  disgrace  with  Tiberius  and  kept  in 
prison,  was  an  intimate  personal  friend  of  Caligula,  the  new 
Emperor.  He  was  immediately  set  at  liberty  and  given  the 
tetrarchy  of  Philip  (which  since  Philip's  death  in  a.d.  34 
had  been  administered  directly  by  Rome)  with  the  title  of 
King.  The  honour  thus  conferred  on  him  roused  the  jeal- 
ousy and  ambition  of  his  sister  Herodias.  When  she  went 
with  her  husband  to  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  feasts  she 
could  not  endure  the  symbols  of  royal  dignity  with  which 
her  brother  and  his  wife  were  adorned,  and  was  determined 
that  her  husband,  too,  should  be  King.  He  was  naturally 
reluctant  to  do  anything,  but  she  was  insistent.     So  Herod 


72  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

and  Herodias  and  a  large  retinue  went  off  to  Rome  that 
he  might  obtain  this  new  honour.  Agrippa,  however,  showed 
his  family  affection  by  defeating  this  plan.  He  sent  off  a 
messenger  of  his  own  to  the  Emperor,  who  travelled  with 
great  celerity  and  took  information  accusing  Antipas  of 
having  conspired  with  Sejanus  against  Tiberius,  and  now  of 
a  treacherous  agreement  with  Artabanus.  As  a  proof  of 
this  statement  it  was  alleged  that  Antipas  had  prepared  the 
equipment  for  an  army  of  70,000  men.  There  seems  to  have 
been  some  truth  in  this  last  allegation,  and  Antipas  could 
not  deny  it.  So  Caligula  deprived  him  of  his  tetrarchy  and 
all  his  property,  and  banished  him  to  Lyons  in  Gaul,  giv- 
ing his  territory  to  Agrippa.  It  may  be  said  to  the  credit  of 
Herodias  that,  although  Caligula  was  prepared  to  treat  her 
with  kindness  as  sister  of  Agrippa,  she  preferred  to  be  true 
to  the  husband  on  whom  she  had  brought  so  many  mis- 
fortunes, and  followed  him  into  banishment. 

In  reviewing  the  reigns  of  these  two  tetrarchs  —  Antipas 
and  Philip  —  during  what  was,  we  know,  so  critical  a  period 
in  the  history  of  Judaism,  we  shall  notice  as  the  most  strik- 
ing feature  the  absence  of  disturbance  and  sedition.  So  far 
as  our  accounts  go  during  all  this  time  Galilee,  Peraea,  and 
Trachonitis  were  free  from  any  unrest  or  sedition,  and  it  is 
hardly  likely  that  any  event  of  great  importance  should 
have  escaped  the  knowledge  of  Josephus.  It  was  not  that 
the  Galilaeans  were  not  capable  of  resistance;  later,  when 
war  broke  out  with  Rome,  they  were  among  the  most  sedi- 
tious. Though  the  home  of  Judas  the  Zealot,  Gahlee  had 
not  to  pay  taxes  to  Rome,  so  no  disturbance  had  yet  taken 
place  there.  Although  deep  religious  passions  existed,  they 
were  for  a  time  dormant,  and  during  these  years  the 
country  enjoyed,  to  an  unusual  extent,  peace  and  pros- 
perity. There  was  but  slight  danger  of  attacks  from  with- 
out, order  was  well  preserved,  the  land  increased  in  wealth, 
and  those  who  would  might  turn  their  thoughts  to  higher  things. 

A  fourth  division  of  Palestine  was  constituted  by  the 
DecapoHs.^  This  term  denoted,  not  a  homogeneous  stretch 
of  country,  but  a  league  of  Greek  cities.     Each  of  these 

^  On  the  DecapoHs  see  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography,  chap,  xxviii.; 
Schiirer,  Geschichte,*  ii.,  148  J". 


THE   DECAPOLIS  73 

had  its  own  territory/  stretching  in  some  cases  over  a 
considerable  area;  each  its  own  constitution,  its  rights, 
and  pri\dleges.  Their  boundaries  would  be  settled  by 
tradition  or  by  definite  deeds  and  grants.  They  might  have 
acquired,  by  treaty,  rights  of  water  or  pasturage.  They 
were  associated  with  one  another  by  common  interests  and 
obligations.  But  the  different  cities  did  not  necessarily 
march  with  one  another,  and  they  were  separated  by  terri- 
tory which  belonged  to  the  tetrarchy.  The  majority  of 
these  cities  had  been  founded  in  the  early  days  of  the  Mace- 
donian conquest,  they  had  suffered  from  the  religious  zeal 
of  the  Maccabees,  and  they  most  of  them  owed  their  free- 
dom to  Pompey,  from  whose  expedition  they  dated  their 
era.  A  league  of  Greek  cities  in  the  midst  of  a  barbarian 
and  unsympathetic  population,  they  were  bound  together  by 
their  common  Hellenism,  by  Hellenic  culture,  hfe,and  religion. 

The  cities  of  the  DecapoUs  were  ScythopoHs,  the  ancient 
Bethshan  on  the  western  side  of  the  Jordan,  guarding  the 
entrance  to  the  Plain  of  Esdraelon;  on  the  eastern  side 
Hippus,  Gadara,  and  Pella,  whose  territories  were  contigu- 
ous; on  the  road  which  ran  south  from  Pella  were  Dium, 
Gerasa,  and  Philadelphia  —  the  ancient  Rabbath  Ammon; 
on  the  road  west  from  Gadara,  Raphana  and  Kanatha, 
which  lay  at  the  foot  of  the  Jebel  Hauran;  finally,  to  the 
north  was  Damascus. 

The  sites  of  these  cities  are  remarkable  at  the  present  day 
for  the  striking  ruins  of  the  Empire  that  they  preserve. 
Their  theatres,  their  amphitheatres,  their  temples  still  stand 
in  ruined  magnificence;  their  aqueducts  stretch  for  miles 
across  the  country;  their  bridges  and  their  roads  survive 
as  memorials  of  a  past  when  the  country  was  civilized;  their 
great  columned  streets  may  still  be  traced;  at  Gerasa  there 
are  still  200  columns  standing.  One  may  wander  still 
among  the  side  streets,  and  see  the  remains  of  shop  and 
store  and  private  dwelHng-place.^ 

^  We  have  the  territory  of  the  Hippos  mentioned  under  the  name  of  Hip- 
pene  ('iTnrrjvrj) ,  B.J.,m.,  37;  of  Gadara,  Gadaritis,  (FaSapirts),  B.J.,  iii.,  542; 
of  Philadelphia,  Philadelphene  {^t.\ad€\(f>rivri) ,  B.J.,  iii.,  47. 

^  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  603:  "Approach  any  of  these  sites  of  the  Decapolis, 
and  this  is  the  order  in  which  you  are  certain  to  meet  with  their  remains. 


74  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

They  were  strongholds  of  Hellenism  in  a  Jewish  land. 
Their  Gods  were  Greek  — •  Zeus  and  Pallas,  Heracles, 
Dionysus,  Artemis;  their  language  was  Greek;  they  were 
the  homes  of  men  famous  in  Greek  hterature.  From 
Gadara  came  Philodemus  the  epicurean,  Meleager  the  epi- 
grammatist, Menippus  the  satirist,  Theodorus  the  rhetori- 
cian. Galilee,  says  Josephus,  was  surrounded  by  foreign 
nations.  It  is  not  without  significance  that  within  sight  of 
the  Sea  of  GaHlee,  on  the  hills  above  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  might  be  seen  the  signs  of  the  religion  and  culture  of 
the  Greek  world,  and  that  Greek  language  and  thought 
were  permeating  even  Jewish  life.^ 

Such  was  the  political  condition  of  Palestine  at  the  time 
when  it  was  to  be  the  scene  of  the  greatest  events  in  the 
world's  history.  Let  us  cast  an  eye  for  a  moment  on  the 
neighbouring  countries.  The  safety  of  Palestine  depended 
largely  on  the  Arabian  kingdom  which  guarded  the  desert 

Almost  at  the  moment  at  which  your  eye  catches  a  cluster  of  columns,  or  the 
edge  of  an  amphitheatre  against  the  sky,  your  horse's  hoofs  will  clatter 
upon  pavement.  You  cannot  ride  any  more.  You  must  walk  up  this  cause- 
way, which  the  city  laid  out  far  from  its  gates.  You  must  feel  the  clean 
tight  slabs  of  basalt,  so  well  laid  at  first  that  most  of  them  lie  square  still. 
You  must  draw  your  hand  along  the  ruts  worn  deep  by  the  chariot  wheels 
of  fifteen,  eighteen  centuries  ago.  If  the  road  runs  between  banks  there 
will  be  tombs  in  the  limestone,  with  basalt  lintels,  and  a  Roman  name  on 
them  in  Greek  letters,  perhaps  a  basalt  or  a  limestone  sarcophagus,  flung 
out  on  the  road  by  some  Arab  hunter  for  treasure.  If  it  is  a  waterless 
site  like  Gadara  you  will  find  an  aqueduct  running  with  the  road,  the  pipes 
hewn  out  of  sohd  basalt,  with  a  diameter  Hke  our  drain  pipes,  and  fitting 
to  each  other,  as  these  do,  with  flanges.  But  if  it  be  the  more  character- 
istic site  by  a  stream,  you  will  come  to  a  bridge,  one  of  those  narrow  para- 
petless  Roman  bridges  which  were  the  first  to  span  the  Syrian  rivers,  and 
have  had  so  few  successors.  You  reach  the  arch,  or  heap  of  ruins,  that 
marks  the  old  gateway.  Within  is  an  open  space,  probably  the  forum,  and 
from  this  right  through  the  city  you  can  trace  the  line  of  the  long  colon- 
naded street.  Generally  nothing  but  the  bases  of  the  columns  remains,  as 
in  the  street  called  Straight  of  Damascus,  or  as  at  Gadara;  but  at  Phila- 
delphia ten  or  twelve  columns  still  stand  to  their  full  height,  and  in  the 
famous  street  of  Gerasa  nearly  two  hundred.  This  last  street  was  lined  by 
public  and  private  buildings  with  very  rich  fagades.  At  Gadara  you  can 
still  see  a  by-street  with  plain  vaulted  buildings,  probably  stores  or  bazaars. 
The  best  preserved  buildings,  however,  are  the  amphitheatres,  the  most 
beautiful  are  the  temples." 

^  G.  A.   Smith,  p.   607:    "The    temples    of    Zeus,   Pallas,  and    Astarte 


•     THE   BORDER   STATES  75 

frontier.  From  the  year  9  B.C.  to  the  year  a.d.  40  it  was 
governed  by  Aretas  IV,  The  only  event  of  importance 
recorded  of  his  reign  has  already  been  related,  but  he  has 
left  an  interesting  memorial  of  himself  in  the  numerous  coins 
that  he  issued.  They  imply  considerable  commercial  vigour 
and  prosperity,  and  the  inscriptions  upon  many  of  them 
are  an  indication  of  the  character  of  his  reign.  The  title 
by  which  he  calls  himself  is  "Charithath,  King  of  the 
Nabataeans,  Lover  of  His  People."  This  is  not  a  meaning- 
less title.  It  implies  that  he  wishes  to  be  known,  not  as 
Lover  of  Greece,  Lover  of  Rome,  or  Lover  of  Caesar  —  such 
names  were  eagerly  sought  by  these  client  princes  —  but  as 
lover  of  his  own  country.^ 

To  the  north  of  Palestine  still  remained  some  of  the 
smaller  principalities  through  whom  the  mountain  tribes 
were  governed.  Abilene,  a  portion  of  the  Ituraean  territory, 
had  as  tetrarch  a  Lysanias,  a  member  of  the  same  family 
as  the  Lysanias  of  the  times  of  Herod  and  perhaps  a  son  of 
Zenodorus.-  Of  the  neighbouring  Chalcis  at  this  time  we 
have  no  knowledge,  and  Commagene,  to  the  north  of  Syria, 
had  now  been  joined  to  the  province,  but  Arethusa  and 
Emesa  still  preserved  a  measure  of  independence. 

The  great  question  always  present  in  the  East  was  that  of 
the  Parthian  Empire  and  the  Euphrates.  It  never  ceased  to 
cause  agitation,  and  it  always  remained  a  problem.  The 
imperial  policy  formulated  by  Augustus  had  fixed  the  limits 
beyond  which  the  Empire  was  not  to  advance,  and  he  al- 
ways refused  to  deal  in  a  thorough  manner  with  the  Par- 
crowned  a  height  opposite  to  that  which  gave  its  name  to  the  Sermon  on 
the  Mount.  Bacchus,  under  his  Greek  name,  rules  the  territory  down  the 
Jordan  valley  to  Scythopolis.  There  was  another  temple  to  Zeus  on  the 
other  side  of  Galilee  at  Ptolemais,  almost  within  sight  of  Nazareth.  We  can- 
not believe  that  the  two  worlds,  which  this  one  landscape  embraced,  did 
not  break  into  each  other." 

^  On  Aretas  IV.  see  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  i.,  736;  on  the  coins  Head,  Hist. 
Num?,  p.  811;  Gutschmid,  Verzcichniss  der  nabataische  Konige,  in  Euting, 
Nabataische  Inschriften  aus  Arabia  (Berlin,  1885),  Hill,  British  Museum 
Catalogue,  Arabia,  etc. 

^  On  this  Lysanias  see  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  i.,  717.  The  existence  of  a 
younger  Lysanias,  contemporary  with  our  Lord,  is  proved  both  by  Josephus 
and  by  inscriptions;  the  opposite  opinion  is  maintained  by  Schmidt  in  an 
article  in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  iii.,   2842,  which  exhibits  all  the  wrong- 


76  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

thian  question.  Whether  he  was  right  or  not  is  one  of 
those  questions  which  may  provoke  endless  and  inconclusive 
discussion,  but  a  different  pohcy  might  have  had  a  profound 
influence  on  the  future  of  the  world.  The  Roman  policy 
aimed  at  securing  its  frontier  by  making  its  neighbours 
weak.  Parthia  was  continually  torn  by  domestic  dissen- 
sions, which  were  largely  fomented  by  the  undignified  in- 
trigues of  the  Emperor.  Rome  did  not  desire  to  cross  the 
Euphrates,  and  the  buffer  state  of  Armenia  provided  a  cer- 
tain mild  antagonism  between  the  two  great  empires.  While 
the  Governor  of  Syria  was  in  normal  times  entrusted  with 
the  administration  of  the  Euphrates  front,  and  it  was  only 
in  Syria  that  legions  were  stationed,  from  time  to  time  mem- 
bers of  the  imperial  family  were  entrusted  with  special  mis- 
sions. Under  the  guidance  of  an  experienced  statesman  and 
general  they  visited  the  famous  cities  of  the  ancient  world, 
and  marched  with  an  army  into  Armenia,  whose  capture 
they  celebrated.  There  was  sometimes  fighting,  and  the  ex- 
pedition concluded  by  a  meeting  on  a  bridge  over  the  Eu- 
phrates and  a  solemn  treaty  which  neither  side  had  the  in- 
tention to  observe  or  the  courage  to  break.  So  in  the  year 
I  B.C.  came  Caius  Caesar,  and  twenty  years  later  Ger- 
manicus. 

After  a  period  of  domestic  and  national  strife  a  Median, 
not  of  the  royal  house,  who  is  known  as  Artabanus  III., 
ruled  in  Parthia  from  a.d.  io  to  40.  His  reign  was  followed 
by  another  period  of  domestic  dissension,  and  for  the  time 
the  Eastern  menace  was  dead.  To  the  land  of  Syria,  which 
always  bore  the  first  impetus  of  a  hostile  invasion,  the  terror 
of  the  Parthian  cavalry  was  very  vivid.  The  memory  of 
the  great  disaster  of  Crassus  still  survived,  and  the  impor- 
tant fact  at  this  period  was  that  through  the  wise  and  cau- 
tious, if  uninspiring,  policy  of  Augustus  the  fear  seemed 
gone.  A  prospect  of  profound  peace  reigned  in  the  East. 
Not  yet  had  the  angel  "poured  out  his  vial  upon  the  Eu- 
phrates, and  the  waters  thereof  been  dried  up,  that  the  way 

headedness  which  makes  that  publication  so  untrustworthy  and  even  ri- 
diculous. The  determination  to  prove,  in  the  face  of  obvious  evidence, 
that  the  New  Testament  is  wrong  is  considered  by  many  persons  a  sign  of 
unbiassed  research. 


JESUS   AMONG  THE   RABBIS  77 

might  be  made  ready  for  the  kings  of  the  East  that  come 
from  the  sun-rising."^ 

V 

It  is  related  by  St.  Luke  that  when  Jesus  had  reached  the 
age  of  twelve  He  went  up  with  His  parents  to  the  Passover 
at  Jerusalem,  and  that  when  they  returned  He  stayed  be- 
hind and  was  found  in  the  temple  sitting  among  the 
teachers,  hearing  them  and  asking  them  questions.  It  ap- 
pears that  it  was  a  custom  at  the  festivals  and  Sabbaths  for 
members  of  the  Sanhedrin  to  give  public  instruction  on  the 
law  on  the  terrace  of  the  temple,  and  it  is  probable  that  an 
occasion  like  this  is  referred  to.^  The  historian  Josephus 
tells  us  a  similar  story  about  himself.  While  he  was  still  a 
boy  about  fourteen  years  of  age,  he  was  the  object  of  uni- 
versal praise  for  his  love  of  learning,  and  the  chief  priests 
and  great  men  of  the  city  came  together  at  times  to  receive 
an  accurate  exposition  from  him  on  points  of  law.^  The  con- 
trast between  the  conceit  of  the  historian  and  the  modest 
claims  of  the  Evangelist  is  certainly  remarkable,  but  the 
story  told  by  Josephus  may  suggest  that  the  narrative  of  St. 
Luke  is  not  so  improbable  as  has  been  supposed.  That 
Jesus,  as  He  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature,  should  desire 
to  know  the  true  meaning  of  the  law  in  which  He  was  being 
instructed  was  probable  enough,  and  this  incident  will  make 
us  desire  to  know  who  \vere  the  teachers  who  at  this  time 
were  the  official  exponents  of  the  rehgion  of  Israel. 

The  Jews  in  our  Lord's  day  were  an  educated  nation. 
Probably  the  vast  majority  could  read  and  write.  They 
were  taught  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  learnt  the  principles 
of  their  religion.     That  was  for  many  their  interest  in  life, 

^  Rev.  xvi.  12. 

2  On  this  incident  see  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  vol.  i.,  chap. 
X.  The  extent  to  which  these  early  incidents  recorded  in  Jerusalem  are  his- 
torical must  always  be  doubtful,  but  there  is  nothing  improbable,  certainly 
nothing  impossible,  in  the  story.  Even  those  who  deny  the  divine  character 
of  Christ  must  recognize  that  He  was  certainly  one  who,  at  any  period  of 
His  life,  must  have  been  remarkable  alike  for  religious  piety  and  intelli- 
gence. 

'  Josephus,  Life,  §  9.  'in  5'  avTlirais  wv  irepl  TeacrapecrKaideKaTov  eras  3td 
TO  (piXoypd/xnaTov  vtto  iravroiv  €Tr-(ivovix7}v  avviovTuv  aet  tuv  apxiepeuv  nal  tuv 
T'^s  TToXews  irpwTUU  virep  rov  trap'  ep,ov  irepl  TUf  voix'iixwv  aKpi^ecrrepop  rt  yi'ui'ai. 


78  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

and  they  would  desire  to  gain  as  much  information  and 
as  accurate  knowledge  as  circumstances  allowed.  The 
machinery  consisted  of  the  synagogue,  the  elementary 
school  attached  to  the  synagogue,  and  the  higher  school  or 
University.  The  one  school  was  called  the  Beth-ha-Sepher, 
the  other  the  Beth-ha-Midrash.  The  relation  of  the  two  may 
be  learnt  from  a  Rabbinical  commentary  on  Genesis,  which 
teaches  us  the  later  custom.  "Esau  and  Jacob,"  it  said, 
"went  together  until  they  had  passed  the  thirteenth  year, 
when  they  parted,  the  former  entering  the  house  of  idols, 
and  the  latter  the  Beth-ha-Midrash.'"^  The  synagogue  and 
the  elementary  school  were  found  throughout  Palestine,  and 
all  Jewish  boys  could  have  the  opportunity  of  learning. 
The  local  courts  of  justice  and  the  synagogue  would  imply 
the  presence  of  scribes  and  teachers  trained  in  the  law  in 
every  important  town,  and  much  discussion  and  teaching 
about  the  law  and  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  would  pre- 
vail everywhere,  but  it  would  all  depend  upon  the  great 
school  at  Jerusalem.  It  was  here  that  scribes  and  teachers 
were  trained,  here  the  great  Rabbis  taught,  and  from  here 
decisions  went  out  to  the  strict  and  devout  Jews  through- 
out Israel.  If  we  may  trust  later  tradition,  there  was  a 
great  school  or  schools  —  Beth-ha-Midrash-ha-Gadol  —  situ- 
ated in  the  temple,  probably  somewhere  under  the  porticoes 
by  which  it  was  surrounded.  Here  was  the  centre  from 
which  the  growth  and  development  of  Judaism  were  dis- 
seminated.^ 

It  is  our  task  now  to  give  some  account  of  the  charac- 
teristics of  Rabbinical  teaching  at  this  time.  It  is  one  which 
it  is  difhcult  to  perform  with  accuracy.  Our  earliest  sources 
concerning  it  are  those  contained  in  the  Mishna,  which  was 
not  written  down  until  the  end  of  the  second  century,  nearly 
two  hundred  years  later;  and  although  we  may  recognize 
that  the  later  date  may  be  compensated  for  by  the  great 
power  of  memory  developed  in  the  schools,  by  the  training 
of  each  student  to  learn  by  heart  the  decisions  and  teaching 

^  Gen.  k.  Ixiii.  lo. 

^  On  the  organization  of  Jewish  schools  and  learning  see  Schurer,  Ge- 
schichie*  vol.  ii.,  §§  26,  27,  with  the  references  there  given.  See  also  article 
on  Bait-ha-Midrash  in  Jewish  Encyclopaedia,  vol.  iii.,  116^. 


RABBINICAL    TEACHING  79 

of  his  instructors,  and  by  the  weight  laid  on  the  scrupulous 
preservation  of  tradition,  yet  a  study  of  the  contents  of 
Jewish  hterature  will  convince  us  that  even  men  with 
trained  memories  will  tend  to  remember  things  as  they  wish, 
and  make  us  distrust  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  com- 
pilers. We  feel  ourselves  in  the  presence  of  a  singular  type 
of  mind.  There  is  an  absence  of  any  historical  sense.  Instead 
of  history  or  biography  there  are  stories  often  trivial 
and  absurd.  A  desire  for  what  seems  edification  entirely 
overpowers  any  conception  of  historical  truth.  The  present 
is  read  into  the  past,  which  is  reconstructed  on  a  priori 
lines.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  further  our  sources  are  re- 
moved from  the  event  recorded,  the  fuller  they  become. 
The  history  is  often  neither  edifying  nor  trustworthy,  but  it 
has  another  sort  of  truth.  It  enables  us  to  form  a  not  un- 
faithful conception  of  the  manner  of  mind  and  teaching  ex- 
hibited by  the  Rabbis.  In  what  follows  we  shall  quote  both 
the  story  and  the  tradition,  with  the  conviction  that,  if  not 
always  verbally  true,  the  general  picture  that  it  presents  is 
faithful.^ 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era  the  great  name  of 
the  Rabbinical  schools  was  that  of  Hillel,^  the  founder  of 
the  traditional  exegesis.  He  was,  we  are  told,  a  Jew  of 
Babylon,^  of  the  seed  of  Da\'id.    He  had  progressed  far  in 

•^  The  English  reader  may  gain  some  direct  conception  of  the  character 
of  Rabbinical  teaching  from  translations  of  the  Talmud:  Eightaen  Treatises 
of  the  Mishna,  translated  by  De  Sola  and  Raphall  (ed.  London,  1845);  Bar- 
clay, The  Talmud  (London,  1878);  Pirke  Aboth,  translated  by  Dr.  C.  Tay- 
lor (Cambridge,  1897),  and  in  Charles,  Apocryphal  and  Pseudepigraphic 
Literature,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  686-741,  ed.  Herford.  The  only  important  Haggadic 
work  of  which  I  know  an  English  translation  is  the  Pirke  de  Rabbi  Eliezer,  by 
Gerald  Friedlander  (London:  Kegan  Paul,  1916).  On  the  literature  of  the 
subject  generally  see  Oesterley  and  Box,  TJie  Religion  and  Worship  of  the 
Synagogue.  ■  .,  ^ 

2  On  HiUel  by  far  the  best  account  that  I  have  been  able  to  find  is  that 
of  Ewald,  History  of  Israel,  E.T.,  vol.  vi.,  p.  21,  and  that  is  incomplete. 
See  also  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,^  vol.  i.,  i-io;  art.  Hillel,  Jewish  En- 
cyclopaedia, vol.  vi.,  p.  397;  Schiirer,  op.  cit.,  p.  424^.,  and  the  literature 
there  cited;  Delitzsch,  Jesus  and  Hillel,  in  Jewish  Artisan  Life,  E.T.  (Lon- 
don, 1877).  There  does  not  appear  to  have  been  any  scholarly  and  com- 
plete investigation  of  his  life  and  the  traditions  about  him. 

'  It  is  a  characteristic  example  of  the  way  the  Rabbis  write  history  that 


8o  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

learning  in  the  schools  of  his  own  home,  and  so  great  was  his 
enthusiasm  for  the  study  of  the  law  that  he  had  travelled 
to  Jerusalem  in  order  to  add  what  its  doctors  might  have  to 
teach  to  his  own  learning.  He  had  to  endure  the  severest 
poverty.  By  working  at  his  trade  he  earned  a  victoriatus  a 
day  —  about  5d.  On  half  of  it  he  supported  his  family; 
with  the  other  half  he  was  able  to  pay  his  entrance  fee  for  the 
lectures  of  Shemaiah  and  Abtalion.  One  Sabbath  eve  in 
winter  he  had  no  money  to  pay  his  entrance  fee,  so  he 
climbed  up  into  the  window  that  he  might  hear  all  that  was 
said.  Unable  to  bear  the  intense  cold  he  fainted.  The 
lecture  lasted  all  night,  and  he  was  only  discovered  in  the 
morning,  when  it  was  noted  how  slowly  the  morning  light 
penetrated  into  the  school  house.  They  found  him  lying 
insensible,  buried  in  the  snow.  He  was  extricated  and 
revived.  As  the  students  performed  this  charitable  work 
they  remarked  characteristically:  "He  is  worthy  that  on  his 
account  the  Sabbath  should  be  broken."  In  process  of  time 
this  poor  student  became  the  head  of  the  Rabbinical  schools 
and  the  fountain-head  of  Jewish  theology. 

He  was  clearly  a  man  of  strong  character.  He  was  de- 
voted to  the  study  of  the  law,  but  he  had  less  than  other 
Rabbis  of  the  harshness  and  bitterness  which  so  often  seems 
to  have  characterized  them.  He  was  gentle  in  disposition, 
displayed  a  caustic  but  not  unkind  wit.  He  was  leader  of 
the  more  moderate  school  of  Theology,  and  laid  down  the  prin- 
ciples on  which  in  later  generations  the  law  continued  to  be 
interpreted.  These  characteristics  are  revealed  by  the  sayings 
recorded  in  Pirke  Aboth}  "Be  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron," 
he  said,  "one  that  loves  peace,  that  pursues  peace,  that 
loves  mankind  and  brings  them  nigh  to  the  Torah."  "Say 
not:  when  I  am  at  leisure  I  will  study:  perchance  thou 
shalt  not  be  at  leisure."  He  exhibits  that  scorn  of  the  ig- 
norant which  was  undoubtedly  a  characteristic  of  the 
Rabbis:    "No  uneducated  man  is  quick  to  shrink  from  sin, 

they  described  him  as  having  lived  for  three  periods  of  forty  years,  the  first 
in  Babylon,  the  second  as  learner  in  Jerusalem,  the  third  as  head  of  the 
Rabbinical  school.  The  object  of  such  history  was  to  make  his  life  parallel 
to  that  of  Moses. 

^  See  Pirke  Aboth,  chap,  i.,  §§  12-14;   ii-.  §§  S~8. 


HILLEL  AND   SHAMMAI  8i 

no  man  of  the  people  is  religious."  "No  one  devoted  to 
trade  becomes  wise."  There  is  a  certain  shrewd  wisdom  in 
the  following  maxim:  "No  one  who  is  too  timid  learns 
well,  and  no  one  who  is  too  angry  teaches  well."  His  cynical 
view  of  common  life,  and  his  exaltation  of  learning  are  con- 
trasted in  the  following  maxim:  "The  more  flesh  one  hath, 
the  more  worms;  the  more  treasures  the  more  care;  the 
more  women  the  more  superstition;  the  more  maidservants 
the  more  unchastity;  the  more  menservants  the  more 
theft;  the  more  law  the  more  life;  the  more  schools  of  law 
the  more  wisdom;  the  more  counsel  the  more  insight;  the 
more  righteousness  the  more  peace.  If  one  gains  a  good 
name,  one  gains  it  for  oneself;  if  one  gains  knowledge  of 
the  law,  one  gains  the  life  to  come." 

The  great  rival  and  opponent  of  Hillel  was  Shammai,^  and 
many  of  the  stories  which  are  related  turn  on  the  contrast 
between  the  two.  "Let  a  man  be  always  gentle  like  Hillel, 
and  not  hasty  hke  Shammai."  Shammai  is  always  depicted 
as  teaching  the  law  in  its  harshest  and  most  rigid  aspect. 
While  Hillel  attracted  proselytes,  Shammai  drove  them 
away:  "The  passionateness  of  Shammai  sought  to  drive  us 
out  of  the  world;  the  gentleness  of  Hillel  has  brought  us 
under  the  wings  of  the  divine  glory."  This  was  illustrated 
by  many  stories  somewhat  puerile  in  character,  and  one  of 
them  embodies  Hillel's  most  famous  saying.  "A  heathen 
came  to  Shammai  with  the  request  that  he  would  accept  him 
as  a  proselyte,  and  teach  him  the  whole  law  while  he  was 
standing  on  one  foot.  Shammai  drove  him  away  with  the 
measuring  rod  which  he  had  in  his  hand.  Hillel  accepted 
him  and  said:  'That  which  is  to  thee  hateful  do  not  to  the 
neighbour.  This  is  the  whole  law;  the  rest  is  commentary; 
go  away  and  practise  it.'"^ 

It  seems  characteristic  of  the  Rabbinical  tradition  that 
it  should  put  together  in  this  way  the  ridiculous  and  the 

^  On  Shammai  see  Schurer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  424,  425,  and  the  references 
there  given. 

2  These  stories  of  the  proselytes  who  came  to  Hillel  and  Shammai  are 
given  in  full  in  Ewald,  op.  cit.,  p.  22.  They  come  from  Shabhath,  fol.  30b 
and  31a. 


82  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

sublime  without  seeing  the  incongruity.^  The  story  seems  to 
belong  to  the  later  days  of  Judaism,  when  no  great  thoughts 
or  deeds  stirred  the  minds  of  the  narrow  circle  of  pedants 
who  composed  the  Mishna  and  the  Gemara.  It  does  not 
harmonize  with  the  religious  earnestness  of  the  school  which 
trained  St.  Paul  or  hardened  the  nation  for  the  last  great 
revolt.  We  may  dismiss  the  story  as  legendary,  and  accept 
the  maxim  as  historical.  It  is  based  upon  the  teaching  of 
the  Old  Testament.  It  is  found  in  a  slightly  different  form 
in  the  book  of  Tobit:  "What  thou  thyself  hatest  do  to  no 
man."  It  has  its  parallel  amongst  heathen  writers;  and  it 
may  be  held  to  represent  the  highest  point  which  a  sober 
and  somewhat  utilitarian  morality  may  attain.  Hillel 
showed  clear  insight  in  seeing  that  here  was  the  essential 
point  of  the  law  of  which  perhaps  it  represents  the  highest 
attainment,  but  there  is  a  wide  difference  between  what  he 
taught  and  the  Christian  ethic  which  puts  the  rule  before 
us  in  its  positive  and  not  in  its  negative  side,  turns  it  into 
a  great  imperative  of  moral  enthusiasm,  and  allows  it  to 
permeate  all  teaching  and  life.  As  we  read  the  other  re- 
corded sayings  of  Hillel  and  his  school,  nothing  ever  reminds 
us  that  he  had  the  intuition  to  see  where  the  root  of 
law  and  morality  lies;  as  we  read  the  Christian  tradition  we 
never  feel  far  from  its  great  law  of  Love.^ 

If  on  this  point  Hillel  approached  near  to  the  teaching  of 
Christ,  on  other  points  he  was  far  removed  from  it.  While 
Shammai  and  his  school  maintained  that  no  one  should 
divorce  his  wife  except  for  unchastity,  Hillel  apparently 
himself,  and  certainly  his  school,  allowed  divorce  for  any 
cause,  "even  if  she  spoiled  his  food,"  and  it  is  noted  that 
Rabbi  Aqiba  at  the  end  of  the  century  said,  "even  if  he 
find  another  woman  more  beautiful."    But  it  is  pointed  out 

^  A  custom  seems  to  have  prevailed  in  the  Rabbinical  schools  of  pre- 
serving, exaggerating,  or  inventing  stories  illustrating  the  character  and 
idiosyncrasies  of  leading  men,  much  in  the  same  way  as  in  Oxford  or  Cam- 
bridge stories  partly  true,  partly  untrue,  are  told.  In  both  cases,  even  if 
historically  the  evidence  be  doubtful,  there  is  no  doubt  of  their  poetic 
truth. 

^  On  this  maxim  of  Hillel's  by  far  the  best  exposition  from  the  Jewish 
point  of  view  is  that  of  Abrahams,  Studies  in  Pharisaism,  "The  Greatest 
Commandment,"  p.  19  (Cambridge,  191 7).     The  Christian  need  not  hesi- 


JEWISH  EXEGESIS  83 

that  these  were  intended  to  be  rather  theoretical  rules 
asserting  the  abstract  right  of  the  husband  than  recommen- 
dations of  what  should  actually  be  done.  Hillel  would  pre- 
vent divorce  by  compelling  the  husband  to  return  the  whole 
of  the  wife's  dowry. ^ 

The  most  striking  maxim  recorded  of  Shammai  seems  to 
imply  his  severity:  ''Make  thy  Torah  a  fixed  duty;  say 
little  and  do  much :  and  receive  every  man  with  the  look  of 
a  cheerful  face."  Stories  were  circulated  telling  how  rigidly 
he  carried  out  the  law.  He  is  said  to  have  wanted  to  make 
his  son,  while  still  a  child,  conform  to  the  law  concerning 
fasting  on  the  day  of  Atonement,  and  when  his  daughter- 
in-law  gave  birth  to  a  boy  on  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  he 
was  said  to  have  broken  through  the  roof  of  the  chamber  in 
which  she  lay  in  order  to  make  a  Sukkah  or  booth  of  it,  so 
that  the  new-born  child  might  keep  the  festival.  Yet 
while  Hillel  would  teach  the  law  to  all,  Shammai  would  only 
teach  it  to  those  who  were  wise,  humble,  and  of  godly,  well- 
to-do  parentage. 

It  was  as  the  founder  of  Jewish  exegesis,  and  as  laying 
down  —  in  a  more  systematic  manner  than  had  hitherto 
been  done  —  the  principles  on  which  it  developed,  that 
Hillel  probably  exercised  the  greatest  influence  on  posterity, 
an  influence  which  really  counteracted  any  more  liberal 
elements  there  may  have  been  in  his  teaching.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  exegesis  was,  it  must  be  remembered,  primarily 
the  interpretation  of  the  law  as  a  rule  of  life.  When  once 
the  conception  of  a  fixed  law  as  ruling  life  has  been  at- 
tained, some  authority  that  can  declare  and  interpret  the 
law  becomes  necessary,  and  that  authority  requires  rules 
for  its  guidance.  The  first  necessity  in  the  case  of  the  Jew- 
ish law  arose  from  the  conflict  of  rules.  When  there  was  an 
apparent  discrepancy  between  different  passages  in  the 
Pentateuch,  it  required  a  careful  exegesis  to  reconcile  them. 
The  second  difficulty  arose  from  the  fact  that  any  law,  if  it 

tate  to  recognize  the  highest  point  attained  by  Rabbinical  exegesis,  for  the 
fact  will  always  remain  that  Christian  morality  has  always  been  built  on 
this  principle,  and  Rabbinical  teaching  has  not. 

^  See  on  this  Abrahams,  op.  cit.,  "Jewish  Divorce  in  the  First  Century" 
p.  66. 

7 


84  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

is  rigidly  applied,  becomes  impossible.  The  law  has  to  be 
interpreted  so  as  to  harmonize  with  the  facts  of  life.  How 
can  its  severity  be  mitigated?  The  third  difficulty  arose 
from  the  incompleteness  of  the  law.  No  code  could  ever 
cover  every  case;  how,  then,  could  new  cases  be  decided? 
In  order,  therefore,  to  adapt  the  law  to  all  cases,  a  recog- 
nized system  of  interpretation  was  required.^  It  was  this 
that  Hillel  came  from  Babylon  to  learn  at  the  feet  of  She- 
maiah  and  Abtalion;  this  he  taught  himself;  and  his  prin- 
ciples were  embodied  in  seven  rules  which,  afterwards  ex- 
panded into  thirteen,  were  looked  upon  not  only  as  authori- 
tative, but  as  one  of  the  most  sacred  possessions  of  Judaism. 

Here  are  the  seven  rules.  The  first  was  "light  and 
heavy,"  which  is  interpreted  to  mean  the  argument  a 
fortiori.  An  instance  given  is  that  Josa  ben  Jochanan 
of  Jerusalem  argued  that  whatever  was  true  of  his  wife 
was  even  more  true  of  all  women.  The  second  was  "a  like 
decision,"  the  argument  from  analogy.  The  third  was  "a 
conclusion  from  a  single  text."  The  fourth,  "a  conclusion 
from  two  texts."  The  fifth,  "from  the  particular  to  the 
general  and  the  general  to  the  particular."  The  sixth,  "to 
the  like  in  another  place"  —  that  is,  applying  a  similar 
method  to  a  different  passage.  The  last,  "the  argument 
from  the  context."  It  is  only  necessary  to  remark  that  a 
judicious  employment  of  these  principles  would  make  it 
possible  to  arrive  at  any  desired  result.^ 

A  particular  instance  of  Hillel's  legislative  ingenuity  was 
an  ordinance  which  bore  the  enigmatic  name  of  Prosbol. 
This  showed  how  he  was  able  to  harmonize  the  ordinances 
of  the  law  with  the  realities  of  life.  It  is  well  known  that 
according  to  the  Mosaic  code  all  debts  contracted  were 
remitted  during  the  Sabbatical  year.  The  natural  result 
of  such  a  law  was  a  great  reluctance  to  lend,  a  result  which 
had  indeed  been  foreseen:  "Beware,"  it  was  said,  "that 
there  be  not  a  base  thought  in   thine   heart,    saying,    The 

1  On  Jewish  exegesis  and  its  purpose    see    Schiirer,   op.   cil.,  pp.   391- 

399- 

2  On  the  seven  rules  of  Hillel  see  Schiirer,  Geschichte*  ii.,  397.  They 
are  found  in  the  Tosephta  Sanhedrin,  vii.,  fui.  (ed.  Zuckermandel,  p.  427), 
the  Abbot  de  Rabbi  Nathan,  c.  37,  and  in  the  introduction  to  the  Siphra 


THE   SUCCESSORS   OF   HILLEL  85 

seventh  year,  the  year  of  release,  is  at  hand;  and  thine  eye 
be  evil  against  they  poor  brother,  and  thou  give  him 
nought."  In  order  to  remedy  this  Hillel  ruled  that  if  a 
creditor  made  a  declaration  before  the  judge  that  he  re- 
served to  himself  the  right  to  collect  his  debts  whenever  he 
chose,  the  Sabbath  year  did  not  remit  them.  In  other 
words,  he  introduced  a  system  of  "contracting  out."^ 

His  industry,  his  learning,  and  his  character  —  gentle  and 
mild,  but  determined  —  gave  Hillel  an  ascendancy  in  his 
own  day  which  survived  long  after  his  death,  and  if  we  are 
to  believe  later  tradition  a  continuous  succession  of  his  de- 
cendants  acquired  almost  a  monopoly  of  the  position  of 
head  of  the  Rabbinic  schools.  His  Son,  Simeon  I.,  was 
distinguished  for  his  modesty  and  his  godliness,  and  the 
only  saying  of  his  recorded  is  certainly  characteristic:  "All 
my  days  I  have  grown  up  among  the  Wise,  and  I  have  not 
found  anything  better  than  silence;  and  not  study,  but  ac- 
tion is  the  chief  thing;  and  whoso  makes  many  words  occa- 
sions sin."  His  son,  Gamaliel  I.,  was  the  teacher  of  St. 
Paul,  the  wise  counsellor  of  the  Acts.  Then  in  succession 
came  Simeon  II.,  Gamaliel  II.,  Simeon  III.,  Judah  the 
Prince,  who  compiled  the  Mishna,  and  Gamaliel  III.  But 
there  are  some  who  think  that  the  succession  in  office  has 
created  the  story  of  genealogical  descent  from  Hillel,  and 
that  even  the  succession  in  ofhce  itself  is  not  historical. 

The  controversy  between  Hillel  and  Shammai  was  con- 
tinued by  their  schools, 2  and  the  Mishna  bears  witness 
to  the  many  differences  of  opinion  between  the  house  of 
Hillel  and  the  house  of  Shammai  —  so  they  were  designated. 

(Ugolini,  Thesaurus,  t,  xiv.,  595).  See  on  them  the  Jeivish  Encyclopaedia, 
xii.,  pp.  30-33.  They  were  expanded  into  thirteen  rules  ascribed  to  the 
Rabbi  Ishmael.  These  are  contained  in  the  Jewish  prayer-books,  and 
supposed  to  be  recited  by  each  Jew  every  day. 

1  On  tlie  Proshol  see  Schebiith,  x.,  3-7  (the  treatise  of  the  Mishna  on 
the  Sabbatical  year);  Schurer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  427-8;  Jewish  Encyclopaedia, 
X.,  219.  The  word  is  most  probably  derived  from  the  Greek  irpoa^oXr],  and 
perhaps  represents  the  Latin  adjcciio  —  a  clause  added  to  and  modifying 
a  contract. 

2  On  the  schools  of  Hillel  and  Shammai  see  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten, 
p.  II.  and  the  articles  "Bet  Hillel"  and  "Bet  Shammai"  in  the  Jewish  En- 
cyclopaedia, vol.  iii.,  p.  115. 


86  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

So  constant  was  the  dispute  between  them,  so  many  were 
the  different  conclusions,  that  it  was  said  the  one  law  had 
become  two  laws.  The  same  features  were  preserved  in  the 
schools  as  had  been  shown  by  their  founders,  and  the  fol- 
lowers of  Hillel  were  supposed  to  be  distinguished  for  the 
leniency  of  their  interpretations,  those  of  Shammai  for  their 
severity.  In  316  places  in  the  Mishna  are  the  differences  of 
these  two  schools  cited,  and  in  only  fifty-three  of  them  is 
the  milder  decision  that  of  the  school  of  Shammai.  During 
the  years  that  preceded  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  a  fundamental 
dispute  between  them  was  concerned  with  the  relation  to 
the  Roman  power.  While  the  followers  of  Hillel  strove 
to  assuage  the  increasing  bitterness,  those  of  Shammai 
encouraged  it.  In  order  to  increase  the  bitterness,  they 
laid  down  that  no  Jew  should  engage  in  buying  or  selling 
with  Gentiles.  A  violent  discussion  is  said  to  have  taken 
place  at  which  many  followers  of  Hillel  were  murdered  —  it 
is  difficult  to  say  whether  we  are  dealing  with  sober  history 
or  Rabbinical  Midrash  —  and  as  a  result  the  eighteen  ar- 
ticles which  intensified  the  evil  were  adopted.  At  any  rate 
this  is  certain:  The  policy  of  harshness  and  violence  tri- 
umphed; all  moderate  counsels  were  suppressed;  and  this 
unrestrained  bitterness  resulted  in  the  revolt  and  the  de- 
struction of  the  Jewish  state.  For  a  time  the  poKcy  of 
Shammai  prevailed,  and  its  results  were  evil.  When  the 
schools  of  law  were  restored,  first  at  Jamnia,  then  at  Ti- 
berias, it  was  the  precepts  of  Hillel  that  became  dominant. 
It  was,  as  we  have  seen,  his  descendants  or  reputed  de- 
cendants  who,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  became 
heads  of  the  Rabbinical  schools,  and  therefore  presidents  of 
the  Sanhedrin  in  its  new  aspect,  and  it  was  his  descendant. 
Rabbi  Judah,  the  Prince,  to  whom  his  nation  was  indebted 
for  the  compilation  of  the  Mishna. 

A  perusal  of  the  pages  of  the  Talmud  will  reveal  to  us 
the  subjects  of  debate  between  the  two  schools.  The  follow- 
ing, taken  from  the  tract  of  the  Mishna  called  Berakhoth, 
or  "Blessings,"  may  serve  as  an  instance: 

"These  are  the  controversies  relating  to  meals  between 
the  schools  of  Shammai  and  Hillel.  The  school  of  Shammai 
says,  'One  must  say  the  blessing  of  the  day,  and  then  bless 


SCHOOLS   OF  HILLEL  AND   SHAMMAI         87 

the  wine';  but  the  school  of  Hillel  says,  'One  must  say  the 
blessing  on  the  wine,  and  then  bless  the  day.' 

"The  school  of  Shammai  say,  'Men  must  pour  water  on 
the  hands  and  then  mix  the  goblet';  but  the  school  of 
Hillel  say,  'The  goblet  must  be  mixed,  and  then  water 
poured  on  the  hands.' 

"The  school  of  Shammai  say,  'One  is  to  wipe  his  hands 
on  the  napkin  and  lay  it  on  the  table';  but  the  school  of 
Hillel  say,  'on  the  cushion.' 

"The  school  of  Shammai  bless  'the  light,  the  food,  the 
spices,  and  the  distinction  of  the  day';  but  the  school  of 
Hillel  bless  'the  light,  the  spices,  the  food  and  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  day.'  The  school  of  Shammai  say,  'Who 
created  the  hght  of  fire';  but  the  school  of  Hillel  say, 
'Creator  of  the  light  of  lire.' 

"If  one  have  eaten  and  forgotten  and  not  blessed?  The 
school  of  Shammai  say,  'He  must  return  to  his  place  and 
bless.'  But  the  school  of  Hillel  say,  'He  may  bless  in  the 
place  where  he  recollects.'  How  long  is  one  obliged  to 
bless?     'Until  the  food  in  his  stomach  be  digested.'"  ^ 

One  of  the  instances  given  in  which  the  school  of  Hillel 
was  more  rigid  than  that  of  Shammai  was  deemed  of  suffi- 
cient importance  to  give  a  name  to  a  whole  tract  of  the 
Mishna,  that  of  Beza,  or  "The  Egg."  Hillel  held  that  an 
egg  laid  on  a  feast  day  might  not  be  eaten;  Shammai  was 
of  a  contrary  opinion.^ 

We  may  give  one  more  instance  of  the  controversy  be- 
tween these  schools,  taking  it  from  the  Haggada  and  not 
the  Halakha: 

"The  school  of  Shammai  said:  'The  heavens  were  cre- 
ated first,  and  the  earth  afterwards,  as  it  is  said,  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth."'  The 
school  of  Hillel  said:  'The  earth  was  created  first,  and  the 
heavens  afterwards,  as  it  is  said,  "Of  old  hast  thou  laid 
the  foundations  of  the  earth,  and  the  heavens  are  the  work 
of  thy  hands."  '  " 

The  two  schools  continued  to  quote  texts  against  one 
another,  each  of  them  relying  on  the  order  in  which  the 

^  Berakhoth  (the  treatise  on  Blessings),  viii. 
2  Beza,  i.,  i;   Eduolh,  iv.,  i. 


88  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

heavens  and  earth  were  mentioned  in  the  texts  cited;    at 
last  the  account  ends: 

"Contention  arose  between  them  on  this  question;  un- 
til the  Holy  Spirit  rested  between  them,  and  they  both 
agreed  that  both  (heaven  and  earth)  were  created  in  one 
hour  and  at  one  moment.  What  did  the  Holy  One,  blessed 
be  He,  do?  He  put  forth  His  right  hand,  and  stretched 
forth  the  heavens,  and  He  put  forth  His  left  hand  and 
founded  the  earth,  as  it  is  said:-  'Yea,  Mine  hand  hath 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  My  right  hand  hath 
spread  out  the  heavens.'"  ^ 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  form  a  just  estimate  of  these 
schools  and  their  teaching.  It  is  presented  to  us  in  so  unat- 
tractive a  form,  it  is  so  alien  to  all  our  thoughts,  it  is  so 
inconsistent  with  any  sound  methods  of  exegesis  and  inter- 
pretation, that  we  can  hardly  have  patience  with  it.  Yet 
from  time  to  time  some  learned  Rabbi  attempts  to  apolo- 
gize for  his  religion,  and  a  bold  claim  has  been  advanced 
that  all  Christianity  is  to  be  found  in  the  Talmud.^  It  is, 
indeed,  true  that  grains  of  gold  may  be  extracted  from  the 
mass  of  teaching;  that  occasionally  we  find  a  shrewd  re- 
mark, an  elevated  thought,  or  a  parable  picturesque  in  its 
language  and  spiritual  in  its  teaching.  We  remember,  in- 
deed, that  we  are  concerned  with  a  religious  development 
which  has  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament, *|and  that  it  could 
never  completely  lose  what  it  drew  from  such  an  origin. 
We  may  make  every  allowance  for  the  care  for  religion,  the 

1  Pirke  der  Rabbi  Eliezer,  ed.  Friedlander,  pp.  134,  135. 

2  By  far  the  most  moderate  and  thoughtful  defence  of  Rabbinism  is 
that  of  Abrahams  in  the  work  already  cited.  We  may  quote  with  much 
approval  the  words  with  which  he  ends  his  preface:  "I  am  well  aware  of 
the  many  imperfections  of  the  studies  here  presented.  But  I  do  claim  that 
I  have  not  written  apologetically.  Still  less  have  I  been  moved  by  contro- 
versial aims.  Only  on  rare  occasions  have  I  directly  challenged  the  picture 
of  Pharisaism  drawn  in  Germany  by  Professor  Shiirer,  and  in  England  by 
Canon  Charles.  I  have  preferred  to  supplement  their  views  by  a  positive 
presentation  of  another  view.  In  this  sense  only  are  these  studies  apolo- 
getic and  controversial  ...  I  have  never  consciously  suppressed  defects  in 
the  Pharisaic  position,  nor  have  I  asserted  in  behalf  of  it  more  than  the 
facts,  as  known  to  me,  have  demanded."     We  may  recognize  the  fairness, 


RABBINISM  89 

earnestness,  the  industry  of  the  Rabbinic  schools,  and  the 
piety  of  some  of  their  members.  Yet  the  fact  remains  that 
we  may  turn  over  page  after  page  of  the  Talmud  and  that 
each  passage  seems  more  trivial  and  even  repulsive  than 
its  predecessor,  that  the  matters  in  dispute  were  puerile, 
and  all  the  weighty  matters  of  morality  and  the  Jewish  law 
were  left  far  behind.  If  we  turn  to  the  Midrashic  commen- 
tary, we  find  legend  and  folklore,  stories  trivial  and  often 
unedifying,  and  an  exegesis  which  is  pedantic  and  fantastic. 
Whether  we  judge  them  intellectually  or  spiritually,  the 
Rabbinic  interpretations  are  unsatisfying  and  erroneous; 
they  are  marked  by  incoherent  reasonings,  verbal  quibbles, 
and  bad  logic.  An  interested  history  may  attempt,  on  the 
basis  of  one  or  two  recorded  sayings  of  Hillel,  to  put  him 
forward  as  a  forerunner  or  rival  of  our  Lord,  and  some 
shght  resemblance  has  been  found  in  one  or  two  words  or 
maxims,  but  all  such  attempts  are  really  absurd.  If  we 
consider  the  proportion  the  more  rational  sayings  bear  to 
the  rest  of  his  teaching,  if  we  consider  how  little  bearing 
they  have  on  the  system  which  he  built  up,  how  little  bear- 
ing they  have  on  the  thoughts  of  his  followers,  it  is  seen 
how  unsubstantial  are  all  these  claims. 

Judaism  has,  indeed,  never  been  spiritually  dead.  It 
has  preserved  something  always  of  the  sap  of  the  trunk  from 
which  it  has  sprung.  However  distorted  in  mind,  in  morals, 
in  religion  might  be  the  Rabbis,  they  yet  have  always  had 
in  their  way  a  zeal  for  God,  although  little  according 
to  knowledge.  We  have  great  earnestness  and  strong 
characters.  We  find  sometimes  a  strange  element  of 
mysticism.  But  all  is  vitiated  by  self-will,  by  narrowness 
and  pedantry.  Their  eyes  are  darkened,  their  ears  are  dull 
of  hearing.  They  have  shut  off  from  themselves  the  high- 
est gift  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  wisdom.  We  shall  see  again 
and  again,  as  our  history  proceeds,  how  our  Lord  sweeps 
away  the  cobwebs  of  pedantry  with  which  religion  had  been 

the  piety,  and  the  humanism  of  Dr.  Abrahams,  but  at  the  same  time  our 
judgment  must  be  that  his  presentation  is  unhistorical  and  the  judgment 
of  Schiirer  and  Charles  is  right.  The  modern  Jew  has  learnt  much  from 
Christianity,  and  seeks  to  find  his  new  faith  in  his  old  books,  and  he  finds 
what  he  seeks,  but  forgets  the  dross  that  he  rejects. 


90  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

obscured,  and  illuminates  it  by  a  single  flash  of  insight  and 
inspiration. 

VI 

It  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  of  problems  to  estimate 
the  real  religious  life  of  a  country,  even  of  a  country  we 
know  well  and  in  our  own  days.  How  much  harder  of  one 
remote  from  our  own  times,  concerning  which  but  scanty 
records  have  been  preserved.  Often  it  is  the  singular,  the 
exceptional,  and  even  the  debased  that  becomes  most  con- 
spicuous. The  real  piety  of  a  nation  does  not  court  pub- 
licity, and  lies  concealed  and  unnoticed.  We  have  depicted, 
so  far  as  we  have  been  able,  the  most  conspicuous  currents 
of  the  thought  of  Israel  in  Palestine  at  this  time,  the  Sad- 
ducean  priesthood,  the  Galilaean  zealots,  the  learned  students 
of  the  law.  The  picture  is  an  unattractive  one.  In  its 
most  conspicuous  developments  Israel  seems  to  have  lacked 
the  essential  quality  of  piety.  Religion  seems  to  have  failed 
as  a  guide  to  life.  Do  these,  we  may  ask,  give  us  a  complete 
or  true  picture  of  the  Ufe  of  the  nation?  It  may  be  doubted. 
What  is  best  hardly  appears  in  this  way.  These  uncouth, 
distorted  developments  represent  the  perversion  of  the  true 
religion  which  they  help  to  conceal.  They  testify  to  a 
reality  behind  them,  without  which  they  could  not  have  been 
possible.  All  this  exaggeration  and  distortion  could  only 
arise  among  a  people  that  really  cared  for  religion,  and  if 
there  was  real  piety  to  be  found.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  roots  of  national  piety,  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament,  were  everywhere  known.  The  law  and  the 
prophets  were  read  in  every  synagogue,  the  religious  worship 
of  the  temple  still  preserved  the  ideals  and  memories  of  the 
past,  the  psalms  were  the  organ  of  public  worship  and  the 
expression  of  personal  piety.  There  were  many  who  strove 
to  fashion  their  lives  on  the  pure  morality  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, undisturbed  by  the  pedantic  philosophy,  the  party 
strife,  and  the  religious  fantasies  which  prevailed  so  widely. 

It  is  this  aspect  of  Jewish  life  which  is  presented  to  us 
with  singular  beauty  by   the  Evangelist^   St.  Luke  in  his 

^  I  do  not  feel  competent,  for  we  have  not  the  evidence,  to  pronounce 


THE   PIETY   OF   ISRAEL  91 

story  of  the  births  of  John  and  Jesus.  It  must  be  frankly 
confessed  that  there  is  much  reasonable  doubt  as  to  the 
hmits  of  what  is  history  and  what  is  legend  in  the  story, 
and  the  criticism,  whether  positive  or  negative,  which  would 
speak  dogmatically  goes  far  beyond  the  evidence  available, 
but  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  we  have  put  before  us 
true  types  of  religious  life  as  it  existed  at  that  day  in  Pales- 
tine. It  may  be  noticed  that  throughout  there  are  no 
special  Christian  traits,  and  both  the  theology  and  the  re- 
ligious life  are  purely  Jewish  in  character. 

The  official  priesthood  might  be  corrupt,  but  Zacharias 
and  Elisabeth  were  righteous  and  devout.  Mary,  the 
maiden  of  Nazareth,  was  one  who  had  found  favour  with 
God.  Joseph,  her  husband,  was  a  just  and  upright  man. 
Living  in  Jerusalem,  worshipping  in  the  temple,  untouched 
by  the  evil  around  them,  lived  men  Hke  Symeon,  pious  and 
religious,  waiting  for  the  consolation  of  Israel;  and  in  the 
temple  and  its  courts  might  be  found  those  like  Hannah  the 
prophetess,  who  served  God  night  and  day,  was  constant 
in  prayer  and  fasting,  and  is  represented  as  having  the 
insight  to  recognize  the  Messiah  when  He  came.  How 
many  were  there,  quiet  and  devout,  looking  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  Jerusalem? 

The  aspirations  of  these  people  are  put  before  us  in 
Psalms,  drawn  from  the  language  and  thoughts  of  the  Old 
Testament.  In  nothing  do  they  go  beyond  the  limits  of 
what  might  be  learnt  from  Jewish  prophecy  in  its  more 
exalted  form.  The  thoughts  are  based  on  the  pious  accept- 
ance of  God  as  the  all-powerful  ruler  of  the  world,  and  on 
resigned  submission  to  His  will.  No  word  of  God  is  without 
power.  God  is  my  Saviour.  Holy  is  His  name.  His 
mercy  is  for  all  generations  of  them  that  love  Him.  My  soul 
doth  magnify  the  Lord,  my  Spirit  hath  rejoiced  in  God  my 
Saviour.      The   proud,    the   princes   on    their    thrones,    the 

on  the  origin  and  source  of  the  stories,  and  especially  the  psalms  in  the 
narrative  of  the  Birth  as  given  by  St.  Luke.  Our  knowledge  of  the  methods 
of  ancient  historians  may  make  us  suspect  that  these  songs  have  been  writ- 
ten to  present  to  us  the  fervid  hopes  and  the  religious  feelings  of  their  al- 
leged authors,  and  there  is  some  improbability  in  the  supposition  of  their 
genuineness,  but  we  may  use  them  with  confidence  as  presentations  of  Jew- 
ish life  and  religion. 


92  PALESTINE,   CIVIL  AND   RELIGIOUS 

mighty  upon  earth,  the  rich  are  powerless  against  Him.  To 
the  poor,  the  suffering,  the  meek,  the  lowly  He  is  full  of 
kindness.  His  special  love  is  for  Israel.  He  is  the  God  of 
Israel.  He  remembers  the  covenant  which  he  made  with 
Abraham  and  the  oath  which  he  swore  unto  Jacob. 

All  that  has  been  foretold  by  the  prophets  will  be  accom- 
plished. The  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  will  sit  on  the  throne 
of  David  His  servant,  and  rule  over  Israel  for  ever.  Of  His 
kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  He  brings  redemption  and 
salvation  to  His  people.  He  will  raise  a  horn  of  salvation  in 
the  house  of  His  servant  David;  salvation  from  our  enemies 
and  from  the  hands  of  all  that  hate  us.  He  will  shine  upon 
those  who  are  sitting  in  darkness  and  the  shadow  of  death; 
He  is  the  light  to  lighten  the  Gentiles  and  the  glory  of  His 
people  Israel.  The  end  of  salvation  is  that  they  may  be 
able  to  serve  God  in  holiness  and  righteousness.  He  will 
guide  their  feet  into  the  way  of  peace. 

We  may  perhaps  seek  further  evidence  of  the  religious  life 
of  Israel  at  this  time  in  the  eighteen  Blessings  which  form 
part  of  the  synagogue  prayers.^  They  were  composed  in 
their  present  form  towards  the  end  of  the  first  century,  and 
some  of  the  petitions  were  added  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
but  the  great  body  of  the  prayers  seems  to  have  been  written 
at  an  earlier  date,  and  may  reflect  the  religious  aspirations 
of  the  period  we  are  treating,  and,  at  any  rate,  will  show  us 
what  the  religion  was  which  the  Jew  would  learn  in  his 
services.  God  is  blessed  as  the  God  of  Israel,  the  God  of  our 
Fathers.  From  Him  come  help  and  salvation.  He  is 
Almighty,  Eternal,  Mighty  to  help.  He  giveth  grace  to  the 
living,  life  to  the  dead,  support  to  the  fallen.  "Lead  us 
back  to  Thy  law,  and  bring  us  to  Thy  service."  God  is 
asked  to  forgive  the  sins  of  His  people  and  show  them 
mercy,  to  give  blessings  to  the  land  and  all  the  fruits  of  the 
earth,  to  give  freedom  to  the  land  and  assemble  the  dis- 
persed from  the  four  ends  of  the  world.  His  justice  and 
righteousness  are  praised,  and  His  hatred  of  evil.    "Judge  us 

1  On  these  see  Schurer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  538/-,  who  gives  a  German  transla- 
tion; Hirsch,  article  "Shemoneh  'Esreh"  in  Jeu'ish  Encyclopaedia,  xl, 
pp.  270-282;  Oesterley  and  Box,  op.  oil.,  pp.  2>Z2,-35S\  Singer,  Service  of 
the  Synagogue,  pp.  44~54« 


THE  BLESSINGS  93 

in  righteousness.  Destroy  our  enemies.  Build  up  the 
throne  of  David  in  our  midst.  Let  everything  that  Hveth 
praise  Thee."  The  outlook  throughout  is  purely  Jewish, 
and  there  is  not  any  Messianic  expectation  in  the  more  re- 
stricted sense,  although  the  salvation  of  Israel  is  hoped  for; 
but  the  blessings  breathe  a  deep  and  strong  religious  sense, 
a  firm  beUef  in  God,  a  submission  to  His  overruUng  provi- 
dence, a  consciousness  of  hoUness  and  righteousness  and 
justice  such  as  the  pedantic  and  unreal  study  of  the  law 
often  decreased,  but  never  destroyed. 

When  Jesus  the  Messiah  came  to  Israel,  there  was  much 
evil  in  the  land,  and  history  always  records  the  evil;  there 
was  much  perversion  of  what  was  good,  and  it  is  what  is 
perverted  and  strange  that  attracts  attention,  but  it  must 
never  be  forgotten  that  the  religion  of  Judaism  was  based 
at  all  times  in  its  history  on  the  Old  Testament  with  its 
message  of  righteousness  and  holiness,  and  on  the  traditional 
piety  of  the  Jewish  people.  The  unattractive  developments 
were  the  perversion  or  exaggeration  of  what  was  good.  The 
law  was  holy  and  spiritual.  Israel  was  a  people  more 
devoted  to  religion  than  any  nation  has  ever  been.  That 
religion  was  a  high  and  lofty  one.  There  was  a  strong,  if 
rigid,  system  of  education,  of  worship,  of  life  established  in 
the  land.  There  were  indeed  perversion  and  exaggeration. 
A  dominant  heathenism  and  the  influence  of  Hellenic  life 
caused  continual  strife  and  often  violence.  The  ideal  of 
Israel  had  failed.  But  the  nation  still  preserved  the  seed  of 
true  religion,  and  there  were  many  ready  to  respond  to  the 
divine  message  when  it  came  among  them. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

The  name  by  which  Jesus  was  ordinarily  called  was  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.^  In  Nazareth  He  lived  some  thirty  years 
previous  to  the  baptism  of  John  and  the  beginning  of  His 
ministry.  He  seems  to  have  been  known  as  the  Son  of 
Mary,^  and  it  is  a  reasonable  conjecture  that  Joseph,  who 
is  last  mentioned  when  He  was  twelve  years  old,  was  dead.^ 
Like  Joseph,  He  followed  the  trade  of  a  carpenter. ^  He 
was   therefore  brought  up,   as  we  may  conjecture,   in   the 

1  In  St.  Mark  (i.  24;  x.  47;  xiv.  67;  xvi.  6)  and  twice  in  St.  Luke  (iv. 
34;  xxiv.  19),  according  to  Westcott  and  Hort's  text,  Nafaprjj/os;  in  St. 
Matthew  (ii.  23;  xxvi.  71),  once  in  St.  Luke  (xviii.  37),  in  St.  John  (xviii, 
5,  7;    xix.  19),  and  Acts  (ii.  22;    iii.  6;    iv.  10;     vi.  14;    xxii.  8)   Nafcopalos. 

^  Mc.  vi.  3:  ovx  ovTos  k<TTLv  6  TtKTuv,  6  vios  Tijs  Mapttts;  This  is  the  form 
of  the  passage  in  St.  Mark.  In  St.  Matthew  (xiii.  55)  it  is  changed  to 
6  Tov  TeKTOvos  vios',  ovx  V  A"7''''?P  ciVTOv  'KeyeTai  Mapid/t;  In  St.  Luke  (iv.  23) 
to  OVX''  vios  ecFTLV  'luar)(t>  oCtos; 

There  is  no  doubt  about  the  reading  in  St.  Mark,  although  attempts 
are  made  to  suggest,  on  the  authority  of  late  uncials  and  certain  latet' 
MSS.  with  the  Armenian  and  Aethiopian  versions,  that  it  should  be  reKTOPos 
vlos  Kai  Mapias,  which  would  be  awkward  Greek.  So  Loisy,  Evangiles 
Syno ptiques ,  i.,  p.  833  n. 

The  designation  of  Jesus  as  Son  of  Mary  is  a  most  unusual  expression. 
Only  twice  in  the  Old  Testament  is  anyone  designated  by  the  mother's 
name,  and  hardly  ever,  if  at  all,  in  Rabbinical  Hebrew,  and  it  would  natu- 
rally be  corrected.  Renan  ascribes  it  to  the  fact  that  Mary  was  a  widow 
and  Jesus  was  probably  her  only  son.  Or  it  may  be  intended  as  a  term  of 
contempt,  and  have  alluded  to  suspicions  and  calumnies  such  as  we  find 
later  among  the  Jews  as  to  His  birth. 

3  While  the  mother  and  brethren  of  Jesus  are  several  times  mentioned 
in  the  Gospel  narratives,  Joseph  is  never  referred  to  after  the  commence- 
ment of  our  Lord's  ministry;  in  fact,  his  name  does  not  occur  in  St.  Mark's 
Gospel  at  all.  The  only  passage  which  might  be  quoted  as  implying  that 
he  was  still  living  is  Jn.  vi.  42:  Ouxi  ovtos  iarLv  'Irjaov-i  6  w6s  '\u><Tri4>,  ov 
•finels  o'iSafiev  tov  Tarepa  Kal  tt/v  firjrkpa; 

*  Mc.  vi.  3  (as  quoted  above).  Cf.  Justin  Martyr,  Dialogue  88: 
Kai  kXdovTos  TOV   'IijcroD  kici    tov  'lopdavrjv   Kai    vofxi^onkvov   'Ico(r7)0    tov    teKTOvos 

94 


THE   FAMILY  OF  JESUS  95 

modest  and  respectable  position  of  an  artisan.  It  must 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  brother  of  Joseph,  if  we  are 
to  trust  what  seems  to  be  a  sound  early  tradition,  bore 
the  name  of  Clopas,^  which  is  Greek  —  the  shorter  form,  in 
fact,  of  Cleopatros  —  and  the  adoption  of  a  Greek  name 
implies  some  worldly  position.  It  is  probable  also  that 
Salome,  the  wife  of  Zebedee,  who  was  a  fisherman  of  means 
at  Capernaum,  and  employed  hired  servants,  was  His 
mother's  sister,-  and  if  this  conjecture  be  correct  it  may 
be  the  reason  why  Capernaum  became  later  the  home  of  His 
family  and  the  centre  of  His  preaching. 

Four  sons  of  Joseph  are  mentioned,  James  and  Joses, 
Judas  and  Simon.    He  had  also  daughters,  who,  it  appears, 

vlov  VTrdpxii-i'  Kai  aei5ovs  cos  at  ypa<t)al  tKrjpvaGov  <j)aLvonei'ov  Kal  TfKTOvos 
vom^opivov,  ravra  yap  to.  TtKToviKO.  epya  eipya^ero  kv  avOpuirois  &v,  aporpa 
Kal  ^vya,  Sia  tovtwv  Kal  to.  rfjs  SiKaioffVPTjs  (Tvp0o\a  bidacTKUiv  Kal  evtpyfj  fiiou. 
Celsus  ap.  Origen,  Cont.  Celsum,  vi.,  36:  elra  wai^oiv  to.  irepl  tov  ^v\ov 
airb  hvo  totvojv  airo  x^^^^t^i-  ^eyojv  5td  tovto  avro  irapaXapffafeaOai,,  ffTOi 
iwel  aravpu  tvr)\i!o9r]  6  8i8aaKa\o^  ijpuv  fj  trrel  TtKTWv  rjv  njc  Tkxvriv. 
Origen,  however,  says  in  reply:  ovSapov  tuv  kv  rals  eKK\r]CTiais  (pepopevuv 
evayyeXloov  reKTuv  avros  6  'Irjffovs  avaykypawTai.  This  may  imply  that 
Origen  had  a  different  reading  in  St.  IMark. 

^  Clopas  is  definitely  stated  by  Hegesippus  {ap.  Eus.  iii.,  11;  iv.,  22;  see 
Zahn,  Forschimgen,  vi.,  235)  to  be  brother  of  Joseph  and  his  son  Symeon 
to  be  cousin  of  our  Lord,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  statement. 
He  is  presumably  the  Clopas  mentioned  in  Jn.  xix.  25  (Mapta  17  roD  KXcoTra). 
This  may  mean  Mary,  the  wife  of  Clopas,  or  the  daughter  of  Clopas.  The 
parallelism  of  the  clauses  makes  it  impossible  to  identify  her  with  the  Vir- 
gin's sister,  but  it  is  quite  possible  she  may  be  the  mother  of  James  the 
Little  and  of  Joses  mentioned  in  Mk.  xv.  40,  47;  xvi.  i.  In  this  case  we 
should  have  three  cousins  of  Jesus,  James  the  Little,  Joses,  and  Sj^meon; 
and  the  sobriquet  "the  Little"  may  have  been  employed  to  distinguish 
him  from  his  cousin  James,  the  Lord's  brother.  The  only  difficulty  in  this 
identification  is  that  in  three  cases  we  have  cousins  bearing  the  same  name. 

It  may  be  noted  that  the  identification  of  Alpheus  with  Clopas  has  noth- 
ing to  be  said  for  it,  and  that  neither  the  brothers  nor  the  cousins  of  our 
Lord  were  among  the  Apostles. 

^  The  identification  of  Salome  with  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children  is 
probable.  The  lists  of  those  present  at  the  Cross  in  Mark  (xv.  40)  and 
Matthew  (xxvii.  56)  appear  to  be  identical,  and  in  one  is  metitioned  Salome 
and  in  the  other  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children.  The  further  identifica- 
tion with  "the  sister  of  the  ISIother  of  Jesus"  in  Jn.  xix.  25  is  probable,  as 
thus  the  names  in  John  would  refer  to  the  same  persons  as  those  in  Mat- 
thew and  Mark,  with  the  addition  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus.  That 
James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee,  were  cousins  of  Jesus  does  not,  in 


96  THE   EDUCATION   OF  JESUS 

married  and  settled  in  Nazareth.^  These  are  always 
referred  to  as  the  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus,  and  some 
of  His  brothers  played  a  not  unimportant  part  in  the  early 
history  of  Christianity.^  Of  their  life  and  profession  we 
know  nothing,  but  the  grandsons  of  Judas  a  hundred  years 
later  are  found  occupying  the  position  of  small  farmers.^ 

Externally  Jesus  lived,  as  a  boy  and  young  man,  the 
ordinary  hfe  of  an  artisan  in  simple  surroundings,  but  not 
in  poverty,  and  it  may  be  noted  that  He  always  seems  to 
speak  of  the  poor  from  outside.  Our  story  must  begin 
with  some  account  of  His  home  and  His  home  life.  It  will 
be  necessary  as  the  preliminary  to  our  history  to  investigate 
the  environment  in  which  He  grew  up;  to  consider  the 
natural  features,  the  political  and  social  conditions,  the 
religious  beliefs  and  the  mental  atmosphere  of  Nazareth 
and  Galilee;  to  describe  the  education  He  would  have 
received  and  the  intellectual  equipment  with  which,  as  a 
boy  brought  up  in  a  country  town,  He  would  have  been 
furnished.  Historical  records  supply  us  with  considerable 
and  accurate  information,  while  the  study  of  the  recorded 

the  face  of  their  position,  seem  improbable,  and  it  is  consistent  with  the 
whole  practice  of  the  fourth  Gospel  that  neither  Zebedee  nor  Salome  nor 
either  of  the  sons  of  Zebedee  should  be  mentioned  by  name. 

1  This  is  a  reasonable  conjecture  from  the  words  (Mc.  vi.  3)  Kal  ovk 
eiaiv  al  a8e\(j>ai  avTov  co5e  irpos  tj/xas.  They  were  married  and  settled  in 
Nazareth,  while  the  rest  of  the  family  had  moved  to  Capernaum.  Matthew 
(xiii.  56)  adds  irda-ai,    which  would  imply  more  than  three. 

2  On  the  many  complicated  questions  which  have  been  raised  about  the 
brothers  of  Jesus  see  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  dcs  neutestametUliches 
Kanons,  VI.,  ii.,  "Bruder  und  Vettern  Jesu";  Lightfoot,  St.  PauVs  Epistle 
to  the  Galatians,  Dissertation  II.,  "The  Brethren  of  the  Lord."  There  seems 
to  be  no  reason  (except  a  dogmatic  one)  for  adopting  the  conjecture  of  Je- 
rome that  they  were  cousins,  and  no  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Epiphanian 
theory  that  they  were  half-brothers  against  the  Helvidian  that  they  were 
the  sons  of  Mary.  The  reasons  against  the  latter  view  are  not  derived 
from  history. 

^  Euscbiiis  (Hist.  EccL,  iii.  20)  tells  us  on  the  authority  of  Hegesippus 
that  certain  grandsons  of  Judas,  called  the  brother  of  the  Lord  according 
to  the  flesh,  were  accused  before  Domitian  as  being  of  the  race  of  David, 
and  therefore  presumably  dangerous  rebels.  They  pleaded  their  poverty. 
The  property  of  the  two  amounted  only  to  9,000  denarii,  and  this  not  in 
money  but  in  land,  their  estate  amounting  to  thirty-nine  acres,  which  they 
cultivated  themselves  (see  Zahn,  Forschungen,  vi.,  239). 


GALILEE  97 

words  of  Jesus  will  throw  abundant  light  on  the  external 
conditions  which  determined  the  form  of  His  teaching,  and 
will  contribute  much  to  the  understanding  of  it. 


Nazareth  was  a  city  of  Southern  Gahlee,  situated  to  the 
north  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.^  It  lay  in  a  basin  in  the 
southernmost  range  of  the  Galilaean  mountains,  some  thou- 
sand feet  above  the  sea,  surrounded  on  all  sides  by  low  hills. 

The  province  of  Galilee  had  well-marked  natural  features. 
It  was  rich,  fertile,  and  well  watered,  famous  for  its  crops, 
its  vines,  and  its  olives.  Copious  streams  burst  out  from 
the  hills,  and  there  are  places  where  the  grass  is  green  even 
in  summer.  It  presents  a  marked  contrast  to  the  hot, 
sterile  ridges  of  Judaea.  The  one  was  green  and  smiling, 
the  other  hard  and  stern  and  brown;  the  one  a  country  of 
gardens  and  fields  and  vineyards,  the  other  the  feeding- 
place  of  scattered  flocks  or  the  haunt  of  the  wild  animal. 

Different,  too,  from  Judaea  were  the  relations  of  Galilee 
to  other  lands.  No  one  would  climb  the  steep  valleys  of 
Jerusalem  save  for  the  sake  of  visiting  it.  No  highways 
passed  through  Judaea.  Safe  in  its  rocky  isolation  it  had 
often  defied  the  armies  of  far  larger  states,  and  when  it  had 
yielded  to  the  might  of  Rome,  it  could  still  remain  the 
asylum  of  a  stern  creed,  difficult  of  access  to  new  ideas. 
But  Galilee  was  traversed  by  great  roads. 2  The  traveller 
from  Egypt,  after  following  the  coast-line  nearly  as  far  as 
Mount  Carmel,  turned  inland  to  the  plain  of  Esdraelon,  and, 
passing  either  north  or  south  of  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  went 
on  his  way  to  Damascus  and  Antioch,  and  the  lands  beyond 
the  Euphrates.  The  roads  from  Ptolemais  and  the  Phoeni- 
cian coast  to  the  Greek  cities  of  the  Decapolis,  to  Damascus 
and  to  the  East,  passed   through  it.     Nazareth  itself  lay 

^  On  Galilee  and  Nazareth  see  especially  Galilee  in  the  Time  of  Christ, 
by  the  Rev.  Selah  Merrill,  D.D.  This  seems  to  be  the  source  of  most  of 
the  modern  information  on  the  subject.  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography 
of  the  Holy  Land,  chap,  xx.,  brings  out  the  salient  features  admirably. 
Renan,  Vie  de  Jesus,  chap,  ii.,  gives  an  attractive  picture. 

^  See  especially  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  425:  "The  next  great  features 
of  Gahlee  are  her  roads.    The  Garden  of  the  Lord  is  crossed  by  many  of 


98  THE   EDUCATION   OF   JESUS 

somewhat  secluded,  shut  off  from  the  world  beyond  the 
hills  that  surrounded  it,  but  travellers  have  described  to  us 
how  different  a  scene  would  be  presented  to  anyone  who 
climbed  to  the  summit  of  the  ridge.  To  the  south  he  would 
see  the  pilgrim  road  which  led  to  Jerusalem  emerging  from 
the  mountains  of  Samaria,  and  the  great  highway  from 
Egypt  would  lie  before  him  in  its  whole  length  from  Megiddo 
as  far  as  Beth-shan.  To  the  north  he  would  look  down  on 
the  road  from  Ptolemais  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  at  that  time 
an  even  more  important  route.  Nor  need  there  be  any 
doubt  that  along  these  two  roads,  the  great  arteries  of 
the  country  and  of  all  the  regions  beyond  Jordan,  there 
would  be  a  continuous  and  varied  traffic.  However  secluded 
the  village  of  Nazareth  might  be,  it  was  very  close  to  the 
greater  life  of  the  Gentile  world. 

So  Galilee  was  in  close  proximity  to  another  world. 
While  the  territory  of  Judaea  was  still  largely  a  sanctuary 
of  Judaism,  protected  by  various  privileges  and  httle  con- 
taminated by  any  close  touch  with  heathen  life,  Galilee, 
although  an  essentially  Jewish  territory,  was  in  close  con- 
tact with  Greek  cities  on  all  sides.  Samaria,  the  cities  of  the 
DecapoHs  and  of  the  Phoenician  coast  were  distant  but  a  few 
miles,  and  the  view  from  the  hill- tops  round  Nazareth  would 
reflect  something  of  the  varied  life  of  the  Roman  Empire. 

Nazareth  at  the  present  day  has  a  population  of  about 
10,000.^  It  is  an  ordinary  Oriental  town,  with  small,  flat- 
roofed  houses,  crowded  together  along  narrow,  winding 
streets  running  up  the  hill-side.  A  single  fountain  provides 
it  with  water,  and  it  is  surrounded  by  gardens,  by  ohve- 
yards  and  vineyards.  No  doubt  in  some  of  its  character- 
istics it  is  little  changed  from  what  it  was  in  the  first  cen- 
tury of  the  Christian  era,  but  there  is  one  fundamental  fact 
which  must  not  be  forgotten.     For  centuries  Nazareth,  like 

the  world's  most  famous  highways.  We  saw  that  Judaea  was  on  the  road 
to  nowhere;  GaUlee  is  covered  with  roads  to  everywhere  —  roads  from  the 
harbours  of  the  Phoenician  coast  to  Samaria,  Gilead,  Hau-ran,  and  Damas- 
cus; roads  from  Sharon  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan;  roads  from  the  sea  to 
the  desert;    roads  from  Egypt  to  Assyria." 

1  The  present  population  of  Nazareth  is  given  differently  in  different 
authorities.  I  take  10,000  from  the  last  edition  of  the  Encyclopaedia  Britan- 
nica. 


NAZARETH  99 

the  whole  of  Palestine,  has  suffered  under  the  rule  of  the 
Turk,  and  an  aspect  of  squalor  has  impressed  itself  on  the 
country.  Then  it  was  inhabited  by  a  people  with  an  in- 
herited discipline  of  Hfe,  and  although  there  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  the  houses  were  more  luxurious  than  those  we  see 
now  or  the  homes  less  simple,  yet  undoubtedly  there  was  a 
tradition  of  orderly  local  government,  there  were  cleanly  and 
decent  sanitary  customs  which  have  been  lost  under  the 
neglect  of  Mohammedan  and  Turkish  rule.  Nazareth  is 
described  as  a  city.^  That  means  that  it  was  larger  in  size 
than  at  present  and  was  an  organized  community.  If  we 
may  trust  Josephus,  it  may  have  had  some  fifteen  or  twenty 
thousand  inhabitants.  Often,  as  we  travel  through  the 
Turkish  Empire,  we  notice  how  where  once  stood  a  city 
now  there  is  but  a  village;  and  the  broken  columns,  the 
half-ruined  tombs,  and  the  fragments  of  inscriptions  are  all 
the  signs  of  former  importance  that  remain.  Some  such 
change,  has  no  doubt  been  experienced  by  Nazareth.  It 
would  be  governed  by  a  Council  of  Elders  and  law  and 
custom  demanded  that  they  should  care  for  the  roads  and 
streets  as  well  as  for  the  synagogue.  The  market  would  be 
carefully  regulated.  The  laws  of  property  were  strict. 
The  morals  of  the  inhabitants  would  be  duly  supervised. 
There  was  much  wealth  and  hospitality.  The  Hfe  of  that 
day  in  Palestine  was  no  doubt  simple,  but  it  was  well 
ordered  and  dignified.  We  must  not  read  back  into  the 
past  the  decadence  of  the  Turkish  Empire. 

Even  now  it  is  a  pleasant  place.  Its  air  is  fresh  and 
healthy,  even  cold  in  winter;  it  is  surrounded  by  gardens 
and  vineyards.  It  is  in  the  centre  of  a  fertile  and  well- 
wooded  district. 

"The  road  which  goes  up  from  the  Bay  of  Carmel  to 
Nazareth,"  says  Sir  George  Adam  Smith,  "winds  as  among 
Enghsh  glades,  with  open  woods  of  oak  and  an  abundance 

^  Lc.  i.  26:  eis  TToXii'  TTJs  TaXiXaias  77  ovofia  Nafaper,  Mt.  ii.  13.  It  must 
be  remembered  that  the  name  city  does  not  imply  size  so  much  as  an  or- 
ganized community  with  its  own  territor>^  surrounding  it  and  some  form  of 
self-government.  Josephus  (Life,  xlv.,  §  235)  says  that  Galilee  contained 
204  cities  and  villages,  the  smallest  of  which  numbered  above  15,000  in- 
habitants.   On  this  statement  see  Merrill,  op.  cil.,  p.  62. 

8 


loo  THE   EDUCATION   OF   JESUS 

of  flowers  and  grass.  Often,  indeed,  as  about  Nazareth, 
the  limestone  breaks  out  not  less  bare  and  dusty  than  in 
Judaea  itself,  but  over  the  most  of  Lower  Galilee  there  is 
a  profusion  of  bush,  with  scattered  forest  trees  —  holly-oak, 
maple,  sycamore,  bay  tree,  myrtle,  arbutus,  sumac,  and 
others  —  and  in  the  valleys  olive  orchards  and  stretches  of 
fat  corn-land."^ 

In  the  time  of  our  Lord,  instead  of  the  desolation  of 
misgovernment,  there  would  be  all  the  signs  of  a  prosperous 
life  and  a  richly  cultivated  land.^ 

A  careful  study  of  the  language  of  the  Gospels  will  both 
illustrate  and  be  illustrated  by  the  picture  of  Galilaean  life 
as  we  can  reconstruct  it.^  The  words  of  our  Lord  reveal 
an  experience  which  harmonizes  with  what  we  may  learn 
from  other  sources,  and  at  the  same  time  enriches  our 
knowledge.  The  imagery  and  similitudes  that  He  employs, 
His  parables  and  proverbial  sayings,  correspond  with  the 
environment  that  history  gives.  He  speaks  as  one  who  has 
observed  life  closely  under  all  the  aspects  which  the  country 
presents.  Nazareth  was  a  country  town,  entirely  occupied 
with  country  interests  and  pursuits.  While  there  are 
reminiscences  of  the  market-place,  the  synagogue,  the  streets 
and  lanes  of  the  city,  our  attention  is  mainly  directed  to  the 

^  G.  A.  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  419. 

^  Renan  {Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  28)  gives  a  somewhat  idyllic  description: 
"Meme  aujourd'hui,  Nazareth  est  un  delicieux  sejour,  le  seul  endroit  peut- 
etre  de  la  Palestine  ou  I'ame  se  sente  un  peu  soulagee  du  fardeau  qui 
Toppresse  au  milieu  de  cette  desolation  sans  egale.  La  population  est  aimable 
et  souriante:  les  jardins  sont  frais  et  verts.  Antonin  Martyr,  a  la  fin  du 
VI°  siecle,  fait  un  tableau  enchanteur  de  la  fertilite  des  environs,  qu'il  com- 
pare au  paradis.  Quelques  vallees  du  cote  de  I'ouest  justifient  pleinement 
sa  description.  La  fontaine  ou  se  concentraient  autrefois  la  vie  et  la 
gaiete  de  la  petite  ville  est  detruite:  ses  canaux  crevasses  ne  donnent  plus 
qu'une  eau  troublee.  Mais  la  beaute  des  femmes  qui  s'y  rassemblent  le 
soir,  cette  beaute  qui  etait  deja  remarquee  au  VI°  siecle  et  ou  Ton  voyait 
un  don  de  la  vierge  Marie,  s'est  conservee  d'une  maniere  frappante.  C'est 
le  type  syrien  dans  toute  sa  grace  pleine  de  langueur.  Nul  doute  que  Marie 
n'ait  ete  la  presque  tous  les  jours,  et  n'ait  pris  rang,  I'urne  sur  I'^paule, 
dans  la  file  de  ses  compatriotes  restees  obscures." 

^  By  far  the  best  analysis  of  the  circumstances  implied  by  our  Lord's 
words  is  contained  in  a  paper  published  in  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  xxix.,  July, 
1872,   pp.   510-531,   by   the   Rev.   Selah   Merrill,   Salmon   Falls,   N.H.,    on 
"Christ  as  a  Practical  Observer  of  Nature,  Persons,  and  Events."    The  same 


COUNTRY  LIFE  IN  THE  GOSPELS  lor 

farm  and  to  agriculture,  to  the  large  estate,  to  the  vineyard 
and  the  cornland,  to  the  shepherd  with  his  sheep,  to  animals 
wild  and  tame,  to  trees  and  fruits  and  flowers.  From  all 
these  sources  our  Lord  draws  constant  illustrations.  Nor 
need  it  be  altogether  fanciful  to  see  in  the  many  allusions 
to  travelling  the  influence  of  the  situation  of  Nazareth  near 
the  great  commercial  routes,  and  of  the  commercial  enter- 
prise of  the  Jewish  people.  To  these  must  be  added  the 
details  of  domestic  life,  while  the  wedding  feast,  that  con- 
spicuous festival  of  the  well-to-do  countryside,  is  a  favourite 
subject  of  parable. 

Some  illustrations  in  detail  will  fill  in  the  picture.  The 
large  household  and  the  well-managed  estate  were  features 
in  the  economic  life  of  Galilee.  We  read  of  the  faithful  and 
wise  servant  whom  the  lord  hath  set  over  his  household, 
and,  in  contrast,  of  the  dishonest  steward  who  wastes  his 
master's  goods.  We  read  of  the  rich  man  whose  ground 
brings  forth  plenteously,  who  will  pull  down  his  barns  and 
build  greater,  who  says  to  his  soul.  Take  thine  ease,  eat, 
drink,  and  be  merry.  There  is  the  enterprising  landlord 
who  plants  a  vineyard,  and  sets  a  hedge  about  it,  and  digs 
a  winepress,  and  builds  a  tower,  and  lets  it  out  to  husband- 
men. We  notice  how  often  there  are  allusions  to  the  wealth, 
the  worldliness,  and  the  good  living  of  the  people.  Many 
have  large  numbers  of  slaves  or  of  hired  servants.  It  is 
the  custom  of  most  men  to  strive  to  lay  up  earthly  treasure. 
The  householder  brings  out  of  his  treasure  things  new  and 
old.  One  man  has  bought  a  farm,  another  five  yoke  of 
oxen.  The  picture  that  is  presented  to  us  is  that  of  a 
wealthy  and  prosperous  agricultural  community. 

Some  of  the  estates  are  held  by  those  who  travel  abroad 
and  leave  them  in  the  hands  of  stewards.  There  are  traders 
and  rich  merchants.  There  is  the  young  man  who  is  led 
by  a  spirit  of  adventure  to  leave  the  family  and  squander 
his  inheritance,  in  riotous  living,  and  the  wise  elder  brother 
who  lives  a  steady  life  at  home. 

All  the  Hfe  of  agriculture  was  full  of  interest  to  our  Lord 
as  to  the  community  in  which  He  lived.     He  draws  His 

method  is  followed  in  a  popular  way  in  T.  R.  Glover,  The  Jesus  of  History, 
chap,  ii.,  "Childhood  and  Youth." 


I02  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

illustrations  from  the  vineyard,  the  cornfield,  and  the 
sheep  farm;  from  the  ploughman,  the  sower,  and  the  gather- 
ing of  the  harvest;  from  the  continual  succession  of  natural 
phenomena;  from  the  corn  of  wheat  which  falls  into  the 
ground  and  dies.  "Lift  up  your  eyes,  and  look  on  the 
fields,  that  they  are  white  already  unto  harvest."  "Pray  ye 
therefore  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  he  send  forth 
labourers  into  his  harvest."  "Gather  up  first  the  tares,  and 
bind  them  in  bundles  to  burn  them:  but  gather  the  wheat 
into  my  barn."  Above  all,  the  life  of  the  shepherd  with  his 
sheep  has  impressed  itself  on  the  language  of  the  Gospels. 
"They  were  scattered  as  sheep  not  having  a  shepherd." 
"Behold,  I  send  you  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves." 
"What  man  of  you,  having  an  hundred  sheep,  and  having 
lost  one  of  them,  doth  not  leave  the  ninety  and  nine  in  the 
wilderness,  and  go  after  that  which  is  lost,  until  he  find 
it?"  "I  am  the  good  shepherd."  When  our  Lord  is 
speaking  of  the  souls  that  are  saved  and  tells  us  that  they 
shall  go  in  and  out  and  find  pasture,  we  feel  that  He  uses 
this  imagery  to  express  His  thoughts  because  He  had  lived 
much  of  His  life  in  the  country  where  there  were  many 
flocks  of  sheep.  Such  language  has  become  largely  con- 
ventional for  us  now;    it  was  not  so  for  Him. 

He  was  interested,  too,  in  the  wild  life  of  the  country  as 
well  as  in  domestic  animals.  "Foxes  have  holes  and  the 
birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of  man  hath  not 
where  to  lay  his  head."  We  read  of  wolves,  of  scorpions 
and  serpents,  of  eagles  and  ravens,  of  the  she-ass  with  her 
young  colt  running  beside  her,  such  as  may  be  seen  any 
day  in  Palestine  now,  of  the  dog,  the  Eastern  scavenger, 
and  the  swine,  of  the  hen  that  gathers  her  chickens  under 
her  wing,  of  the  camel,  the  ox,  the  calf,  the  kid  and  the 
goat.  Galilee  in  the  spring-time  is  a  land  of  flowers,  and 
what  traveller  in  Palestine  would  not  echo  the  words: 
"  Consider  the  lilies  of  the  field,  how  they  grow;  they  toil 
not,  neither  do  they  spin:  yet  I  say  unto  you,  that  even 
Solomon  in  all  his  glory  was  not  arrayed  like  one  of  these." 
The  wonderful  economy  of  nature  which  we  study  now  with 
such  scientific  zeal  is  put  before  us  quite  simply:  "Behold 
the  birds  of  heaven,   that  they  sow  not,  neither  do  they 


NATURE  OF   THE    GOSPELS  103 

reap,  nor  gather  into  barns;  yet  your  heavenly  Father 
feedeth  them."  *'Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns  or  figs  of 
thistles?"  is  the  proverb  a  gardener  would  use,  speaking  to 
those  who  were  gardeners.  We  read,  too,  of  the  grass  of  the 
field,  of  the  thorns  and  tares,  of  the  bramble  bush,  the  vine, 
the  fig,  and  the  sycamore.^  The  allusions  to  nature  are 
natural  and  spontaneous;  they  hardly  ever  appear  to  be 
literary.  They  are  the  language  of  a  countryman,  speaking 
to  countrymen.  Our  Lord  speaks  of  the  great  mustard 
plant  which  bears  seed  so  attractive  to  small  birds  that 
they  lodge  in  its  branches,^  of  the  reed  in  the  marshes  of 
the  great  plain  shaken  by  the  wind,  of  the  watercourse 
swollen  by  the  winter  spate,  and  the  waterless  places  like 
the  limestone  ridges  above  Nazareth. 

Another  interesting  side  of  the  picture  is  the  domestic  life 
that  is  presented.  We  read  of  the  women  grinding  at  the 
mill,  the  leaven  that  is  hid  in  three  measures  of  meal,  the 
salt  that  has  lost  its  savour,  the  lamp  placed  on  a  stand 
to  Hght  the  house,  the  woman  who  fights  her  lamp  in  the 
small,  dark  house  to  find  the  lost  piece  of  silver,  the  old 
garments  which  have  to  be  mended  and  the  worn-out  wine- 
skins, the  oven  heated  with  dried  grass,  the  children's 
bread,  the  servants  and  the  master  of  the  house.  The 
allusions  all  sound  simple  and  natural  and  true.  And  then 
beyond  the  household  comes  the  fife  of  the  town,  the  well 
of  water  springing  up  into  eternal  life,  such  as  the  spring 
of  Nazareth,  the  children  playing  in  the  street,  the  men 
standing  idle  in  the  market-place,   the  disputes  about  an 

1  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of  the  olive  tree  in 
the  words  of  our  Lord,  and  yet  Galilee  was  famous  for  its  olives.  "It  is 
easier,"  they  said,  "to  raise  a  legion  of  olive-trees  in  Galilee  than  to  raise 
one  child  in  Judaea"  (Neubauer,  Geographic  du  Talmud,  p.  i8o;  see  Merrill, 
op.  cit.,  p.  35).  The  only  reference  to  the  production  of  oil  is  in  the  parable 
of  the  unjust  steward  (Lc.  xvi.  6). 

2  The  reference  to  the  mustard  seed  is  not  quite  free  from  difficulty.  We 
are  assured,  however,  that  it  attains  in  one  year  a  growth  of  lo  or  12  feet 
in  good  soil,  and  that  birds  are  fond  of  its  seed,  and  so  rest  on  its  stalks. 
But  it  is  curious  to  notice  that  this  is  the  only  instance  in  such  descrip- 
tions of  nature  where  we  seem  to  have  a  literary  allusion.  The  reference  to 
birds  lodging  in  its  branches  appears  to  be  a  reminiscence  of  Dan.  iv.  12: 
"And  the  fowls  of  the  heaven  dwelt  in  the  branches  thereof." 


I04  THE   EDUCATION   OF   JESUS 

inheritance,  the  field  with  hidden  treasure  —  a  characteristic 
Eastern  touch  then,  as  now  —  the  local  court  with  its  judges, 
the  prison,  and  the  synagogue. 

The  great  festival  of  Eastern  life  is  the  wedding,  and  the 
wedding  with  all  its  accompaniments  provides  many  a 
suitable  illustration  in  our  Lord's  words:  *'Can  the  sons 
of  the  bride-chamber  mourn  so  long  as  the  bridegroom  is 
with  them?"  We  read  of  the  virgins  who  trim  their  lamps 
and  go  forth  to  meet  the  bride  when  the  marriage  procession 
brings  her  home  at  night;  of  the  servants  who  wait  for  their 
lord  coming  back  from  the  marriage-feast;  of  the  brilliantly 
lighted  hall  where  the  marriage-feast  is  held,  in  contrast  to 
the  darkness  outside;  of  the  marriage  garment.  Hospitality 
has  always  been  a  recognized  Eastern  virtue.  The  father 
kills  the  fatted  calf  for  the  returned  prodigal.  Those  who 
are  bidden  to  the  feast  should  take  the  lower  place,  and  the 
lesson  is  given  that  he  that  humbleth  himself  shall  be 
exalted.  Most  people  asked  their  rich  neighbours  when  they 
gave  a  feast,  but  Jesus  bids  us  ask  "the  poor,  the  maimed, 
the  lame,  and  the  bhnd." 

It  is  possible  to  carry  exegesis  of  this  type  to  a  fanciful 
and  unreal  extent.  It  is  easy  to  lay  too  much  stress  on 
single  allusions,  or  to  make  deductions  from  what  is  obviously 
commonplace.  There  is,  however,  a  wealth  of  illustration 
to  be  drawn  from  the  Gospels  which  guards  us,  I  think, 
sufficiently  against  such  a  danger.  A  portion  of  the  imagery 
of  the  Gospels  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and 
the  life  of  the  towns  which  surrounded  it.  Some  small  part 
reflects  scenes  at  Jerusalem.  But  it  is  early  impressions 
that,  above  all,  form  the  mind,  and  we  cannot  doubt  that 
continually  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  less  often  in 
St.  John^  we  have  the  reflection  and  influence  of  the  life  of 
our  Lord  at  Nazareth. 

1  It  must  be  noticed  that  while  it  is  true  that  there  are  considerable 
sections  of  St.  John's  Gospel  which  in  style  and  method  differ  so  markedly 
from  the  Synoptic  language  that  it  is  difficult  to  believe  that  in  their  present 
form  they  could  represent  what  our  Lord  taught,  yet  throughout  the  Gos- 
pel there  are  also  passages  which  seem  to  show  the  same  character  of 
observation  and  to  imply  the  same  environment  as  they  do,  and  most  prob- 
ably represent  a  sound  tradition. 


THE   W»R#S   tF  JEStS  105 

Three  things  may  be  learnt  from  this  analysis  of  our 
Lord's  words.  It  teaches  us  first  something  of  the  Galilaean 
country  hfe.  The  picture  is  that  of  a  well-to-do  rural 
community.  There  are  no  great  signs  of  poverty.  There 
is  much  comfortable  wealth.  There  is  much  vigour  and 
enterprise  in  trade.  There  is  good  agriculture.  There  are 
rich  flocks  and  herds.  The  hfe  is  a  prosperous  and  happy 
one.  Nature  is  fertile  and  its  aspect  is  pleasing.  The 
picture  is  one  which  harmonizes  with  what  we  may  learn 
from  other  sources,  and  forbids  us  to  think  of  Nazareth  as 
a  poor  and  mean  city,  -^ 

Then,  next,  it  helps  to  assure  us  that  the  words  of  Jesus 
correspond  to,  and  are  the  natural  outcome  of,  the  circum- 
stances in  which  He  lived.  They  are  not  such  as  could 
have  come  from  a  dweller  in  Jerusalem;  they  are  very  un- 
like anything  which  an  educated  Jew  of  that  city  would  ha\'e 
spoken;  they  are  not  for  the  most  part  such  as  would  come 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  infant  Church.  This,  of 
course,  cannot  be  applied  to  all  the  words  of  Jesus;  it  does 
not  take  away  from  the  possibiHty  that  the  diction  and 
style  of  our  Lord  might  be  imitated  by  the  Christian 
Church.  But  if  a  tradition  was  created  there  must  have  been 
someone  to  create  that  tradition,  and  it  will  remain  true  that 
the  words  of  our  Lord  are  just  such  as  might  be  spoken  in 
the  circumstances  which  the  Gospel  narrative  itself  describes  — 
that  they  are,  in  fact,  the  natural  words  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

And,  lastly,  it  tells  us  much  of  our  Lord's  human  charac- 
teristics. It  suggests  a  power  of  keen  observation  of  human 
life  and  of  the  world  of  Nature,  of  deep  sympathy  with 
Nature  as  with  man,  a  power  to  see  behind  the  veil  of 
material  things.  It  implies  the  experience  of  one  who  has 
grown  up  and  Hved  in  a  household  of  modest  means,  in  a 
rich  and  fertile  country  district,  who  loves  natural  things, 
whose  outlook  on  the  greater  world  is  from  outside.  He 
had  lived  among  the  townspeople  and  the  landlords  and  the 
shepherds;  He  had  seen  the  merchants  and  the  rich  trav- 
eller, the  soldiers  and  the  courtiers  as  they  passed  along  the 
roads  on  either  side  of  His  home.  The  Gospels  reflect  the 
characteristics  of  Gahlee. 


io6  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

II 

We  pass  from  the  external  circumstances  in  which  Jesus 
grew  up  to  the  spiritual  environment.     It   is   one    of    the  / 
principal  facts   that  we  have  to  remember   that  He  lived/ 
among  an  educated  and  religious  people.     Unlike  most  ofl 
their  neighbours,  to  an  extent  and  in  a  manner  different  | 
to  any  other  nation  of  the  ancient  world,   the  Jews  were  \ 
an  educated  race.     If  not  every  child,  at  any  rate  every  I 
child  of  respectable  parents  would  have  attended  a  syna-/ 
gogue  school,  would  have  learnt  to  read  and  very  probabm 
to   write,   and  would  possess  an  inbred  knowledge  of  the\ 
Scriptures.      Even  more   important  was  the  fact  that  the 
whole  hfe  of  the  people,  in  the  family,  in  the  local  society, 
and  in  the  nation,  was  based  upon  an  intense  and  rational 
religion. 

The  educational  system  of  the  Jews  has  been  already 
described.  We  may  presume  that  a  boy  brought  up  at 
Nazareth  would  attend  the  school  attached  to  the  syna- 
gogue, that  there  he  would  learn  to  read,  and  in  particular  to 
read  the  Scriptures,  and  would  acquire  some  knowledge  of 
Hebrew.  He  would  probably  also  learn  to  write,  although 
this  was  not  so  common  an  accomplishment.  He  would,  in 
the  family  and  in  the  school,  learn  all  the  ordinary  obHga- 
tions  of  the  law,  the  great  'deeds  of  Jewish  history,  and  the 
principles  of  the  religion  of  Israel.  This  was  an  integral 
part  of  the  national  life  and  bound  up  with  the  thoughts  of 
the  people.  But  the  Jew  of  Galilee  Hved  in  the  near  neigh- 
bourhood of  a  Gentile  population,  and  was  in  constant 
intercourse  with  Gentiles  who  passed  through  the  land  or 
were  employed  in  trade  or  commerce  or  government.  The 
contrast  of  the  two  systems  of  life  was  apparent,  and  the 
Jewish  system  of  life  and  religion  was  possessed,  not  as 
something  inherited  and  half  understood,  but  with  intelli- 
gence and  conviction.  The  ordinances,  the  customs,  and 
the  precepts  of  religion  were  steadily  observed.^ 

To  the  influences  of  local  life  were  added  the  inspiration 
and  education  of  the  constant  visits  to  Jerusalem  for  the 

1  All  this  is  very  fully  worked  out  in  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus 
the  Messiah,  book  ii.,  chap,  ix.,  "The  Child  Life  in  Nazareth." 


JEWISH   EDUCATION  107 

feasts.  After  he  had  attained  the  age  of  twelve  or  thirteen 
(there  seems  to  have  been  some  variation  in  the  custom) 
a  Jewish  boy  might  accompany  his  parents  to  Jerusalem, 
There  were,  no  doubt,  families,  whose  circumstances  allowed 
it  and  whose  piety  prompted  it,  who  would  attend  the  great 
feasts  at  the  temple  three  times  each  year,  and  every  city 
and  village  of  Galilee  would  send  its  quota  of  pilgrims  each 
time.  This  continued  intercourse,  this  circulation  of  life 
and  thought,  must  have  been  a  constant  stimulus  to  religion. 
The  temple  and  its  services,  the  glory  of  Sion,  the  magni- 
ficence of  the  city,  were  known  to  the  whole  people.  They 
,  formed  an  integral  part  of  their  thoughts.  Galilee  would 
hear  of  all  the  events  at  Jerusalem  regularly  and  speedily. 
Emissaries  from  the  Sanhedrin  went  through  the  land; 
delegates  from  the  cities  would  take  up  the  temple  tribute; 
the  offerings  of  first-fruits  were  presented  in  the  temple. 
Herod's  influence  had  permeated  the  whole  country.  The 
news  of  his  death  created  disturbances  everywhere.  The 
teaching  of  John  the  Baptist  quickly  collected  hearers  from 
all  Palestine,  and  when  a  new  prophet  arose  in  Galilee,  it 
would  at  once  be  a  concern  to  the  rulers  of  the  nation  in 
Jerusalem.^ 
\  Under  such  circumstances  Jesus  grew  up.  The  Gospels 
/represent  Him  as  reading  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  the 
I  synagogue.^  He  entered  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  as 
/His  custom  was,  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  stood  up  to  read. 
Ta  roll  containing  the  book  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  was  given 
I  Him.  He  opened  it  at  the  sixty-first  chapter  of  Isaiah  — 
whether  this  was  the  alio  ted  portion  for  the  day  or  a 
passage  that  He  chose  Himself  we  cannot  say  —  and  read 
and  expounded  it.  If  the  exposition  would  be  in  the  popu- 
lar Aramaic  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  original  read- 
ing was  in  Hebrew.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  Aramaic 
Targum  was  written  at  this  time.  Even  if  there  were, 
Hebrew  would  be  the  language  of  the  synagogue  reading. 
The  statement  of  St.  Luke  is  further  corroborated  by  the 
many  references  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
words  of  our  Lord:     "Have  ye  not  read  in  the  Scriptures?" 

2  Ibid.,  chap.  x.  ^  Lk.  iv,  i6. 


io8  THE   EDUCATION   OF   JESUS 

Although  the  reading  is  that  of  those  that  He  addresses, 
the  words  suggest,  if  they  do  not  require,  that  He,  too,  had 
read  the  passages  referred  to.  The  Scriptures  and  the 
reading  of  the  Scriptures  were  certainly  habitually  in  His 
thoughts. 

It  is  not  possible  to  speak  with  the  same  certainty  about 
writing.  We  know  that  in  the  ancient  world  writing  was 
much  more  a  professional  matter  than  it  is  at  the  present 
day,  and  writing  is  not  referred  to  with  the  same  frequency 
as  reading.  Yet  amongst  the  Jews  there  is  evidence  that 
it  must  have  been  fairly  widely  diffused.  The  commercial 
needs  of  the  nation,  as  the  requirements  of  government, 
would  demand  an  extended  acquaintance  with  it.  In  the 
parable  of  the  unjust  steward  all  the  debtors  appear  to  be 
represented  as  keeping  their  own  accounts:  "Take  thy  bill 
quickly  and  write  fifty."  A  disciple  like  Matthew,  who 
had  been  a  tax-gatherer,  must  have  habitually  made  use 
of  writing.  The  only  special  reference,  however,  to  writing 
on  the  part  of  our  Lord  is  in  the  story  of  the  adulterous 
woman,  where  our  Lord  stoops  down  and  writes  on  the 
ground.^  It  has  also  been  held  that  the  reference  to  the 
"yod"  and  the  "horn"  in  the  Hebrew  script  implies  an 
acquaintance  with  the  alphabet.^  The  argument  is  not 
conclusive,  as  the  expression  was  probably  proverbial,  but 
the  inference  in  favour  of  a  knowledge  of  writing  is  probable. 
The  statement  made  in  St.  John's  Gospel,  "How  knoweth 
this  man  letters,  having  never  learnt?"^  does  not  imply 
more  than  that  our  Lord  was  not  a  professed  theologian 
and  had  not  been  trained  in  a  Rabbinical  school.  The 
most  reasonable  deduction  from  the  evidence  as  a  whole  is 
that  Jesus  was  able  to  read  and  write,  and  that  He  was 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  in  Hebrew. 

It  is  clear,  on  the  other  hand,  that  our  Lord  had  never 
received  any  of  that  higher  education  which  was  given  in 
the  Rabbinical  schools.  His  words  show  no  trace  of  its 
influence,  and  the  opportunity  for  receiving  instruction 
was  absent.  Neither  in  Nazareth  nor  probably  any- 
where in  Galilee  did  such  schools  exist,  and  the  visit  to  the 

^  Jn.  viii,  6,  ^  ^^^^  y.  i8.  ^  j^   yjj    j^ 


THE  LANGUAGE  OF  JESUS  109 

doctors  in  Jerusalem  must  be  regarded  as  an  isolated  event. 
So  far  as  our  Lord  shows  any  acquaintance  with  such 
teaching,  it  is  to  condemn  it,  but  the  significant  point  is 
that  His  language  and  phraseology  are  entirely  unaffected 
by  it. 

A  further  question  has  been  raised  as  to  His  acquaintance 
with  the  Greek  language.  It  has  been  maintained,  indeed, 
that  He  habitually  spoke  Greek.  That  opinion  may  be 
dismissed.  The  quotations  from  the  actual  words  that  He 
used  on  certain  occasions  are,  in  all  cases,  in  the  current 
Aramaic,  and  we  know  that  that  was  the  ordinary  language 
of  the  people  of  Palestine  outside  the  Greek  cities.  But, 
although  Aramaic  was  the  language  of  the  people,  the  use  of 
Greek  must  have  been  widely  spread.  It  was  the  language 
in  the  East  of  Roman  administration  and  of  commerce. 
Any  native  of  Galilee  who  wished  to  trade  in  the  Greek 
cities  of  Syria  must  have  possessed  some  knowledge  of  it. 
The  use  of  a  Greek  as  well  as  a  Hebrew  name  was  common. 
We  have  already  mentioned  Clopas.  Stress,  however, 
cannot  be  laid  on  Greek  forms  such  as  Peter  and  Didymus, 
as  they  may  have  been  given  at  a  later  period  of  Apostolic 
history.  The  greater  number  of  the  names,  however, 
mentioned  in  the  Gospels  are  not  Greek,  and  show  no  Greek 
influence.  The  circumstances  of  our  Lord's  life  did  not, 
except  quite  occasionally,  bring  Him  into  contact  with 
Greek-speaking  people,  and  His  words  do  not  exhibit  any  of 
the  influence  of  Greek  ideas. 

]    Our  Lord,  then,  had  been  educated  in  the  rehgious  habits 

/^nd  teaching  of  Judaism.     Like  most  other  Jewish  boys  — ■ 

'  at  any  rate  those  of  respectable  parents  —  He  had  learnt  to 

read  and  write.     He  had  been  educated  in  the  Scriptures, 

J    and  could  read  them  in  the  Hebrew  tongue.     His  language 

/    was  Aramaic,  and  even  if  He  had  some  acquaintance  with 

(    Greek,  which  is  possible,  but  not  probable,  it  exercised  no 

I    influence  on  His  words.     He  shows  no  acquaintance  with 

1  the  learned  speculations  of  His  own  fellow-countrymen,  nor 

\  with  any  of  the  secular  knowledge  of  the  times. ^ 

1  There  is  a  large  literature  on  the  language  of  our  Lord.  See  Roberts, 
Greek  the  Language  of  Christ  and  His  Apostles  (1888);  W.  H.  Simcox,  Lan- 
guage of  the  New  Testament  (1889);     T.  K.  Abbott,  Essays,  chiefly  on  the 


no  THE  EDUCATION  OF   JESUS 

The  people  of  Galilee  were  sincere  Jews,  and  when  the 
revolt  from  Rome  came  they  were  conspicuous  for  their 
loyalty  and  fanaticism,  but  the  religion  of-  Israel  as  exhibited 
there  represents  certain  differences  from  that  in  Judaea, 
and  we  are  able,  by  a  careful  study  of  our  Lord's  own  words 
in  comparison  with  what  history  has  recorded  of  the  re- 
ligious situation,  to  define  the  influences  under  which  He 
was  brought  up. 

The  different  sects  and  parties  of  the  Jews  —  the  Pharisees, 
Sadducees,  Essenes,  Zealots  —  are  well  known.  Of  these, 
it  may  be  said  quite  definitely  that  there  is  no  trace  of  any 
Essene  influence  in  the  Gospels.  It  would  not  be  likely  that 
there  should  be.  The  Essenes  were  confined,  for  the  most 
part,  to  the  country  round  the  Dead  Sea  and  to  the  city  of 
Jerusalem,  and  we  do  not  appear  to  have  any  evidence  of 
their  presence  in  Galilee,  nor  is  there  any  trace  to  be  found 
of  any  specific  characteristics  of  Essenism  in  our  Lord's 
teaching.  Equally  marked  is  the  absence,  except  in  the 
Jerusalem  sections,  of  any  reference  to  the  Sadducees  or 
their  teaching.  They  were  confined  in  their  influence  and 
importance  to  Jerusalem.^ 

The  scribes  and  Pharisees,  on  the  other  hand,  were  a 
definite  and  important  element  in  the  record  of  the  Galilaean 
ministry.  There  were  scribes  ■ —  that  is,  men  who  had  made 
a  profession  of  studying  law  —  even  in  villages,  and  the 
scribes  are  more  often  mentioned  than  any  other  repre- 
sentatives of  what  we  may  term  official  Judaism  in  the 
portions  of  the  Gospels  relating  to  the  Galilaean  ministry.^ 
There  cannot  be  any  reasonable  doubt  that  in  a  city  like 
Nazareth  there  would  be  members  of  this  class.  Their 
services  would  be  required  in  relation  to  the  worship  of  the 
synagogue,  the  local  Sanhedrin,  and  the  body  of  elders  who 
would  administer  in  .accordance  with  the  law  the  local 
government  of   the  community.     Less   frequently  are   the 

Original  Texts  of  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  (1891);  Dalman, 
The  Words  of  Jesus,  English  translation  (1902). 

^  The  only  passage  where  the  Sadducees  are  mentioned  outside  Jeru- 
salem is  Mt.  xvi.  1-12,  a  passage  which  may  have  been  displaced. 

2  They  are  mentioned  in  St.  Matthew  twenty- three  times,  in  St.  JMark 
twenty-two  times,  in  St.  Luke  fifteen  times,  in  St.  John  not  once  (once  in 


RELIGION  IN  GALILEE  m 

Pharisees  mentioned.^  On  one  occasion,  at  least,  we  are 
specially  told  that  those  who  disputed  with  our  Lord  had 
come  down  from  Jerusalem,=^  but  no  doubt  in  the  larger 
cities  of  Galilee  some  members  of  the  party  might  be  seen 
who  made  themselves  conspicuous  by  their  religious  pre- 
tensions and  by  their  affected  dress.  Yet  it  is  clear  enough, 
from  the  narrative  of  the  Gospels,  that  these  aspects  of 
reHgion  were  alien  to  the  normal  life  of  the  country  districts. 
They  represent  an  element  outside  the  religion  of  the  people, 
regarded  probably  partly  with  respect,  partly  with  resent- 
ment. Their  rehgion  was  not  the  religion  of  Galilee.  Jesus 
had  learnt  nothing  from  them. 

There  were  other  movements  of  thought  that  influenced 
Judaism,  the  echoes  of  which  we  find  in  the  Gospels.  There 
were  the  Herodians,  the  partisans  of  the  Herod  dynasty, 
who  may  probably  have  found  in  the  brilhancy  of  that 
worldly  monarchy  a  fulfilment  of  the  national  hopes  of 
Israel.  Twice  they  appear  on  the  scene,  once  in  Gahlee.^ 
No  doubt,  as  long  as  Antipas  reigned  and  provided  the 
people  with  peace  and  a  considerable  measure  of  security 
and  prosperity,  he  would  have  his  convinced  and  enthusias- 
tic supporters.  Jesus,  however,  had  for  the  Herodian  dy- 
nasty no  respect.  There  were,  again,  the  movements  against 
foreign  taxation.  It  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  not 
now  a  burning  question  in  Galilee.  Although  the  movement 
against  paying  tribute  received  its  name  from  that  province, 
and  there  were  the  elements  latent  of  a  strong  and  even 
fanatical  nationalism,  yet  so  long  as  there  was  a  national 
ruler  like  Antipas  these  movements  were  in  abeyance.  It 
was  natural,  therefore,  that  the  question  of  the  lawfulness 
of  giving  tribute  to  Caesar  should  be  raised  in  Jerusalem, 
where  it  must  have  been  one  of  practical  politics,  since 
Judaea   was,    after    a.d.    6,    directly    under    Roman    rule.^ 

the  Pericope  AduUerae).  The  references  cover  the  whole  period  of  the 
ministry,  but  it  is  significant  that  the  name  is  most  common  in  proportion 
to  its  length  in  St.  Mark. 

1  The  Pharisees  are  mentioned  in  St.  Mark  twelve  times,  St.  Matthew 
thirty-one  times,  St.  Luke  twenty-eight  times,  St.  John  nineteen  times. 

2  Mt.  XV.  I. 

2  Mk.  iii.  6,  13;    Mt.  xxii.  16. 

*  Mk.  xii.  14-17;   Mt.  xxii.  17-21;   Lc.  xx.  22-25. 


112  THE   EDUCATION   OF  JESUS 

There  is,  however,  abundant  evidence  that  Jesus  was  not 
concerned  with  any  such  movements,  and  that  so  far  as  He 
had  come  in  contact  with  them  they  had  aroused  in  Him 
nothing  but  antagonism.  They  were  alien  to  the  true 
religious  tradition  of  Israel.  The  ardent  nationalist  had 
confused  his  religion  with  worldly  and  poHtical  hopes. 

Some  Jews  in  Palestine,  and  many  outside,  had  been 
strongly  influenced  by  Hellenic  life  and  thought.  In  the 
study  of  the  history  of  Apostolic  Christianity  the  develop- 
ments of  Hellenistic  Judaism  demand  careful  attention,  but 
we  have  in  the  Gospel  no  trace  of  Hellenism.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  how  Galilee  was  surrounded  by  Greek  cities, 
and  how  near  it  was  to  the  life  of  the  world  outside.  The 
columns  and  the  pediments  of  Greek  temples  must  have  been 
visible  from  many  a  hill-top.  The  customs  of  the  Gentiles 
must  have  been  a  matter  of  knowledge  and  observation 
in  a  manner  not  possible  in  the  villages  [of  Judaea.  While 
the  holy  city  was  remote  from  the  direct  trafhc  of  the  world, 
it  flowed  through  Galilee.  Ptolemais,  Caesarea,  Sebaste, 
Scythopolis,  Gadara,  Paneas,  were  all  near,  and  exhibited 
many  signs  of  idolatry.  There  was  on  Mount  Carmel  a 
temple  of  licentious  nature  worship.  But  all  this  influence 
was  entirely  external.  The  religion  of  the  people  was  as 
little  affected  by  Greek  culture  as  is  that  of  the  fellaheen  of 
Palestine  at  the  present  day  by  Western  thought,  and  it  is 
hard  to  find  any  traces  of  such  influence  in  the  Gospel 
narrative. 

There  was  one  movement  of  thought  of  which  we  can 
trace  the  influence  —  that  which  we  are  accustomed  to 
call  Eschatological  or  Apocalyptic.  This  means  in  its 
essence  that  transformation  of  Judaism  which  began  in  the 
Maccabean  period,  and  built  up  the  religious  life  of  the 
people  on  the  basis  of  belief  in  a  future  life.  In  this  form 
it  permeates  the  Gospel  narrative.  It  was  a  movement  of 
thought  which  was  not  confined  to  any  one  school,  but 
had  become  the  common  inheritance  of  Judaism,  the  only 
exception  being,  of  course,  the  Sadducees,  who  still  clung 
to  the  old-fashioned  theology.  It  is  suggested  that  this 
development  was  a  particular  product  of  Galilee,  and  it  has 
been  maintained  that  the  Apocalyptic  writings  which  we 


ESCHATOLOGY  113 

possess  were  produced  in  that  country.  Of  this  there  is  no 
evidence.  There  may,  perhaps,  be  this  amount  of  truth  in 
the  statement,  that  in  Gahlee  the  influence  of  the  temple 
cult,  of  the  priests  who  attended  to  it,  and  of  the  Sadducean 
rulers  must  have  been  remote  and  slight;  that  the  absorbing 
study  of  the  law  was  less  felt;  and  that  there  was  room  for 
a  freer  and  more  imaginative  rehgious  development. 

The  religion  of  Gahlee  was  the  inherited  religion  of  Israel 
in  the  form  that  it  had  attained  in  the  Herodian  epoch.  It 
was  built  up  on  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  teach- 
ing of  the  synagogues.  It  implied  obedience  to  the  law  as 
the  traditional  principle  of  the  life  of  Israel,  but  little 
interest  in  its  too  rigid  interpretation.  Galilee  was,  as  the 
history  of  the  Great  War  showed,  intensely  national  and 
patriotic,  but  during  the  period  of  which  we  are  speaking 
these  elements  were  in  abeyance.  It  was  because  it  was 
not  a  home  of  Rabbinical  knowledge,  or  the  Pharisaic  rule 
of  life,  that  to  the  strict  Jew  Galilee  was  a  place  of  con- 
tempt. "Search  and  see  that  out  of  Galilee  ariseth  no 
prophet."  "Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth?" 
"Galilee,  Galilee,  thou  hatest  the  law,  therefore  thou  shalt 
yet  find  employment  among  robbers,"  is  a  saying  ascribed 
to  Jochanan-ben-Zaccai.^  To  the  Rabbis  the  people  of 
Gahlee  were  "the  people  of  the  land."  No  such  man  can  be 
pious,  said  Hillel.  "To  frequent  the  synagogues  of  the 
people  of  the  land  puts  a  man  out  of  the  world." 2  "This 
people  that  knoweth  not  the  law  is  accursed." 

There  seems,  on  the  whole,  sufficient  evidence  to  show 
that  the  great  body  of  the  people  of  Galilee  did  not  belong 
to  any  of  the  Jewish  sects  of  the  day.  They  performed 
their  religious  duties  —  some  well,  some,  no  doubt,  ill.    They 

^  Jerus.,  Shabbath,  is  d.  Jochanan-ben-Zaccai  was  a  pupil  of  Hillel, 
and  probably,  therefore,  a  contemporary  of  our  Lord.  On  the  estimation 
of  Galilee  see  Neubauer,  Geographie  du  Tahmid,  pp.  177-233.  The  criti- 
cisms on  the  strictures  by  Merrill,  Galilee  in  the  Time  of  our  Lord,  p.  104, 
are  really  beside  the  mark.  No  one  supposes  that  Galilee  was  really  a  con- 
temptible place,  but  there  seems  to  be  sufficient  evidence,  both  BibUcal  and 
Talmudic,  to  show  that  the  people  of  Jerusalem  looked  down  upon  the 
speech,  the  manners,  and  the  customs  of  the  provincial,  and  the  learned  ec- 
clesiastics on  the  commonplace  if  devout  religion  of  the  country. 

2  Pirke  Aboth. 


114  THE   EDUCATION   OF  JESUS 

worshipped  God  as  their  fathers  had  worshipped  Him,  and 
although  they  might  feel  some  attraction  towards  this  or 
that  movement  of  the  times,  they  did  not  exhibit  any 
tendency  towards  extravagant  religious  developments. 
The  Pharisees  might  receive  a  certain  amount  of  the  respect 
that  religious  pretentiousness  often  obtains,  but  the  burdens 
which  scribe  and  Pharisee  sought  to  impose  would  be 
resented. 

In  such  an  atmosphere  Jesus  grew  up.  At  that  time 
Galilee  was  religious,  patriotic,  and  peaceful.  The  people 
adhered  to  the  law,  they  went  on  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem 
at  the  great  festivals,  they  worshipped  in  the  synagogues. 
Some  discipline  was  administered  by  the  local  Sanhedrin. 
The  local  scribes  were  the  depositories  of  legal  knowledge, 
and  attempted  to  raise  the  standard  of  observance.  A  less 
frequent  figure  was  that  of  the  Pharisee  with  his  conspicuous 
dress,  but  occasionally  a  deputation  might  come  down  from 
Jerusalem  on  some  special  mission,  as  they  did  when  John 
preached,  and  afterwards  to  Jesus.  An  atmosphere  such  as 
this  is  reflected  in  the  Gospel  narratives,  especially  in  those 
portions  which  narrate  the  Galilaean  ministry.  They  are 
true  to  the  environment  which  they  depict. 

1  .  ™         . 

/  The   teaching   of   Jesus   as   recorded   in    the    Gospels   is 
inroughout  expressed  in  language  which  clearly  and  exactly 
r_reflects  the  characteristics  of  the  time  when  He  Hved.     The 
theological  implications  of  that  fact  do  not  at  present  con- 
cern us,  nor  the  question  as  to  the  amount  of  authority 
that  should  be  ascribed  to  statements  which  are  expressed  in 
the  ordinary  vehicle  of  the  times  for  the  expression  of  ideas. 
I  What  it  is  important  to  recognize  is  that  the  science,  the 
/  cosmology,  the  psychology  implied  in  our  Lord's  words  are 
'  those  of  the  Jewish  people  of  that  day,  and  that  on  those 
subjects  He  makes  no  pretension  to  advance  their  knowl- 
edge.    It  will  assist  us  in  understanding  the  meaning  and 
conditions  of  His  teaching  if  we  describe  briefly  the  popu- 
\  lar  beliefs  on  these  subjects. 
.    The  literature  of  later  Judaism  enables  us  to  learn  the 
/sort   of    things   that   people  believed  or  imagined,  on    the 


THE   POPULAR   COSMOLOGY  115 

structure  of  the  world  and  the  order  of  nature.     The  book 

of  Enoch,  for  example,  contains  a  large  amount  of  strange 

speculations    of    cosmological    and    astronomical    subjects, 

on  heaven  and  hell,  on  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 

on  the  causes  of  the  changes  of  seasons  and  times.     Ideas 

such  as  these  must  have  been  in  the  minds  of  those  who 

heard  our  Lord's  words,  but  it  must  be  noticed,  and  it  is 

a  point  of  importance,  that  there  is  a  complete  absence  in 

1     His  teaching  of  anything  resembling  the  fantastic  imaginings 

/     that  fill  that  work.    In  fact,  it  may  be  held  that  He  wished 

I      to  impress  upon  His  hearers  the  unimportance  of  all  such 

I       knowledge  and  speculation  compared  with  a  real  spiritual 

I       insight:     "Ye  know  how  to  discern  the  face  of  the  heavens; 

\^     but  ye  cannot  discern  the  signs  of  the  times." ^ 

]        The  earth  was  conceived  as  a  flat  surface  over  which  was 

I    stretched    the   vault   of   heaven.     If   a   man    travelled    far 

/    enough  he  would  reach  ''the  ends  of  the  earth  whereon  the 

/     heaven  rests,  and  the  portals  of  the  heaven  open."^   Heaven 

I     was  the  abode  of  God  and  His  holy  Angels,  and  all  the 

/      resources  of  imagination  were  employed  in  attempting  to 

J      describe  its  glory  and  its  awfulness.     Daniel  describes  to 

V^us  the  majesty  of  God  as  judge  of  the  earth: 

"I  beheld  till  the  thrones  were  placed  and  one  that  was 
ancient  of  days  did  sit:  his  raiment  was  white  as  snow,  and 
the  hair  of  his  head  like  pure  wool;  his  throne  was  fiery 
flames,  and  the  wheels  thereof  burning  fire.  A  fiery  stream 
issued  and  came  forth  from  before  him:  thousand  thousands 
ministered  unto  him,  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand 
stood  before  him:  the  judgment  was  set  and  the  books  were 
opened"^ 

Enoch  more  than  once  attempts  in  his  visions  to  describe 
the  wonders  of  the  heavens: 

"Behold,  in  the  vision  clouds  invited  me  and  a  mist 
summoned  me,  and  the  course  of  the  stars  and  the  lightnings 
sped  and  hastened  me,  and  the  winds  in  the  vision  caused 
me  to  fly  and  lifted  me  upward  and  bore  me  into  heaven. 
.  .  .  And  I  beheld  a  vision,  and  lo!  there  was  a  second 
house,  greater  than  the  former,  and  the  entire  portal  stood 

^  Mt.  xvi.  3.  ^  Enoch  xxxiii.  2  '  Dan.  vii.  9,  10. 

9 


ii6  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

open  before  me,  and  it  was  built  of  flames  of  fire.  And  in 
every  respect  it  so  excelled  in  splendour  and  magnificence 
and  extent  that  I  cannot  describe  to  you  its  splendour  and 
extent.  And  its  floor  was  of  fire,  and  above  it  were  light- 
nings, and  the  path  of  the  stars,  and  its  ceiling  also  was 
flaming  fire.  And  I  looked  and  saw  therein  a  lofty  throne: 
its  appearance  was  as  crystal,  and  the  wheels  thereof  as  the 
shining  sun,  and  there  was  the  vision  of  cherubim.  And 
from  underneath  the  throne  came  streams  of  flaming  fire, 
so  that  I  could  not  look  thereon.  And  the  Great  Glory  sat 
thereon,  and  His  raiment  shone  more  brightly  than  the  sun 
and  was  whiter  than  any  snow.  None  of  the  angels  could 
enter  and  could  behold  His  face  by  reason  of  the  magnifi- 
cence and  glory,  and  no  flesh  could  behold  Him.  The  flam- 
ing fire  was  round  about  Him,  and  a  great  fire  stood  before 
Him,  and  none  around  could  draw  nigh  Him:  ten  thousand 
times  ten  thousand  stood  before  Him,  yet  He  needed  no 
counsellor.  And  the  most  holy  ones  who  were  nigh  to  Him 
did  not  leave  by  night  nor  depart  from  Him."^ 

In  heaven  were  not  only  the  abodes  of  God  and  His  angels, 
but  also  the  "Mansions  of  the  Elect  and  the  Mansions 
of  the  Holy, "2  who  "dwell  in  the  garden  of  life."^  One 
writer  describes  to  us  this  Paradise,  which  is  in  the  third 
heaven: 

"And  these  men  took  me  from  thence,  and  brought  me 
to  the  third  heaven,  and  placed  me  in  the  midst  of  a  garden 
■ —  a  place  such  as  has  never  been  known  for  the  goodliness 
of  its  appearanca.  And  I  saw  all  the  trees  of  beautiful 
colours  and  their  fruits  ripe  and  fragrant,  and  all  kinds  of 
food  which  they  produced  springing  up  with  delightful  fra- 
grance. And  in  the  midst  there  is  the  tree  of  Hfe,  on  which 
God  rests,  when  he  comes  into  Paradise."^ 

Here,  too,  were  the  treasuries  of  the  stars  and  the  man- 
sions of  the  sun  and  moon: 

"And  I  saw  the  chambers  of  the  sun  and  moon,  whence 
they  proceed,  and  whither  they  come  again  and  their 
glorious  return,  and  how  one  is  superior  to  the  other,  and 
their  stately    orbit  .  .  .  and    first  the  sun  goes    forth    and 

^  Enoch  xiv.  8-23,  tr.  Charles.  ^  Enoch  xli.  2.  ^  Enoch  Lxi,  12. 

*  Book  of  the  Secrets  of  Enoch,  viii.  1-3,  ed.  Morfill  and  Charles. 


PARADISE  117 

traverses  his  path  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
Lord  of  Spirits,  and  mighty  is  His  name  for  ever  and  ever. 
And  after  that  I  saw  the  hidden  and  the  visible  path  of  the 
moon,  and  she  accompHshes  the  course  of  her  path  in  that 
place  by  day  and  night  —  the  one  holding  a  position  op- 
posite to  the  other  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits.  And  they 
give  thanks  and  praise  and  rest  not;  for  unto  them  is  their 
everlasting  rest."^ 

Here,  too,  were  the  portals  of  the  winds: 

"And  at  the  ends  of  the  earth  I  saw  twelve  portals  open 
to  all  the  quarters  of  the  heaven,  from  which  the  winds  go 
forth  and  blow  over  the  earth." ^ 

Round  about  the  earth  were  great  mountains,  where  some 
at  any  rate  fancied  were  the  place  of  punishment  and  the 
paradise  of  the  righteous.  To  the  west,  according  to  one 
theory,  was  Sheol,^  or  the  underworld,  where  the  spirits 
waited  until  the  day  of  judgment: 

"These  hollow  places  have  been  created  for  this  very 
purpose,  that  the  spirits  of  the  souls  of  the  dead  should 
assemble  therein,  yea,  that  all  the  souls  of  the  children  of 
men  should  assemble  here.  And  these  places  have  been 
made  to  receive  them  till  the  day  of  their  judgment  and 
till  their  appointed  period,  till  the  great  judgment  comes 
upon  them."^ 

So  to  the  east  was  Paradise,^  or  the  Garden  of  the 
Righteous : 

"And  I  came  to  the  garden  of  righteousness,  and  saw 
beyond  those  trees  many  large  trees  growing  there  and  of 

^  Enoch  xli.  5-7.  ^  Enoch  kxvi.  i. 

2  Hades  or  Sheol  ("AtS???,  71^^)  was  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
underworld,  the  abode  of  the  dead,  a  hollow  place  under  the  earth,  but  its 
meaning  had  become  extended,  and  might  be  used  either  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment sense  or  in  a  modern  sense  as  equivalent  to  Gehenna.  In  the  last 
sense  Enoch  xcix.  11:  "Woe  to  you  who  spread  evil  to  your  neighbours; 
for  you  shall  be  slain  in  Sheol."  With  the  former  sense  compare  Enoch 
xxii.  3,  quoted  above. 

*  Enoch  xxii.  3,  4. 

^  The  word  "paradise"  is  generally  considered  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  Persian  (Zend,  pairidaeza),  where  it  was  used  to  mean  a  park  or  gar- 
den.    From  there  it  passed  both  into  Greek,  and  Hebrew.     In  the  Hebrew 


ii8  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

goodly  fragrance,  large,  very  beautiful,  and  glorious,  and 
the  tree  of  wisdom  whereof  they  eat  and  know  great 
wisdom."^ 

In  the  very  midst  of  the  earth  was  Jerusalem,  "a  blessed 
and  a  holy  mountain,"  ^  and  by  it  were  deep  and  rocky 
ravines.  The  one  was  the  valley  of  judgment,  the  other, 
Gehenna,^  the  valley  of  punishment: 

"This  accursed  valley  is  for  those  who  are  accursed  for 
ever;  here  shall  all  the  accursed  be  gathered  together  who 
utter  with  their  lips  against  the  Lord  unseemly  words  and 
of  His  glory  speak  lewd  things.  Here  shall  they  be  gathered 
together,  and  here  shall  be  their  place  of  punishment.     In 

Old  Testament  it  is  used  in  its  literal  signification  (Eccles.  ii.  s;  Neh.  ii. 
8);  in  the  LXX.  it  is  used  also  with  a  figurative  meaning  of  Eden,  see  es- 
pecially Ezek.  xxxi.  8,  9,  where  Eden  is  called  the  Paradise  of  God:  /cat 
e^rjXwaev  avTov  to.  ^v\a  tov  irapabelaov  rrjs  Tpocpijs  tov  deov  (in  A.V.,  "so 
that  all  the  trees  of  Eden  that  were  in  the  garden  of  God  envied  him"). 
In  Apocalyptic  literature  it  is  used  of  the  abode  of  the  blest,  and  there  are 
two  Paradises,  an  earthly  and  a  heavenly;  so  Secrets  of  Enoch,  viii.  1,3: 
"And  these  men  took  me  from  thence  and  brought  me  to  the  third  heaven, 
and  placed  me  in  the  midst  of  a  garden.  .  .  .  And  in  the  midst  there  is 
the  tree  of  life,  in  that  place,  on  which  God  rests,  when  he  comes  into  Para- 
dise" .  .  .  the  four  streams  which  go  forth  from  the  tree  of  life  "go  down 
to  the  Paradise  of  Eden,  between  corruptibility  and  incorruptibility."  So 
again,  xlii.  3:  "I  went  out  to  the  East,  to  the  Paradise  of  Eden,  where 
rest  has  been  prepared  for  the  just,  and  it  is  open  to  the  third  heaven,  and 
shut  from  this  world. 

Paradise  was  sometimes  thought  of  in  heaven,  sometimes  in  the  moun- 
tains of  the  East,  sometimes,  perhaps,  as  a  part  of  Sheol,  and  was  con- 
ceived either  as  the  eternal  home  of  the  righteous,  or  the  place  where  the 
righteous  might  await  the  judgment.  Nor  must  we  expect  any  clear  or 
accepted  teaching  on  the  subject. 

1  Enoch  xxxii.  3.  ^  Enoch  xxvi.  i. 

'  Geherma  (yetwa:  Hcb.  OJH  '3)  represents  both  as  a  name  and  an  idea 
a  development  of  Old  Testament  usage.  Originally  it  meant  the  deep  valley 
to  the  south  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  for  ever  accursed  in  Jewish  eyes  as 
the  place  where  children  were  burnt  to  Moloch.  The  preparation  for  later 
usage  is  found  in  Jer.  vii.  32,  33:  "Therefore,  behold,  the  days  come,  said 
the  Lord,  that  it  shall  be  no  more  called  Topheth,  nor  the  valley  of  the 
sons  of  Hinnom,  but  the  valley  of  slaughter;  for  they  shall  bury  in  Topheth, 
till  there  be  no  place  to  bury.  And  the  carcases  of  this  people  shall  be 
meat  for  the  fowls  of  the  heaven,  and  for  the  beasts  of  the  earth;  and 
none  shall  fray  them  away."     In  this  passage  the  death  is  purely  physical, 


•EIENNA  119 

the  last  days  there  shall  be  upon  them  the  spectacle  of 
righteous  judgment  in  the  presence  of  the  righteous  for  ever: 
here  shall  the  merciful  bless  the  Lord  of  Glory,  the  Eternal 
King."i 

These  extracts  are  given  as  specimens  of  the  sort  of 
picture  of  the  world  which  the  contemporaries  of  our  Lord 
constructed.  When  fancy  and  imagination  are  the  sole 
source  of  knowledge  there  will  be  little  exactness  or  con- 
sistency of  portrayal.  Each  speculator  will  construct  his 
scheme  of  the  universe  as  he  pleases,  and  it  is  unwise  to 
attempt  to  harmonize  or  discriminate  the  different  theories. 
It  is  sufficient  to  realize  that  conceptions  such  as  these  would 
be  what  our  Lord's  words  would  raise  in  those  who  heard 
them,  and  that  associations  such  as  these  would  be  attached 
to  them. 

We  turn  from  the  conception  of  the  universe  to  that  of 
human  nature.  The  psychology  of  our  Lord's  words  offers 
no  apparent  change  from  that  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
popular  and  primitive,  and  must  not  be  judged  from  a 
scientific  or  philosophical  point  of  view;  but  it  has  one 
characteristic  of  great  importance.  It  presents  a  clear 
conception  of  the  unity  of  human  nature.  There  is  no 
duahsm.  ^ 

The  words  used  in  the  New  Testament,  as  in  the  Old,  and 
as  in  all  primitive  systems  of  thought,  to  describe  the 
nature  of  man,  are  all  in  their  origin  material  —  body,  flesh, 
heart,  soul,  spirit;  to  none  of  them  can  fixed  meanings  be 
assigned  or  definite  functions  be  allotted.  They  are  used 
often  with  meanings  that  overlap,  and  it  may  be  considered 

and  the  prophet  depicts  the  slaughter  of  the  Israelites  just  in  the  place 
where  they  had  sinned  most  deeply.  The  conception  is  the  same  in  Isa. 
Ixvi.  24.  The  idea  of  a  future  punishment  first  occurs  in  Dan.  xii.  2,  and  is 
developed  at  great  length  in  the  Book  of  Enoch  in  the  passages  quoted  and 
others.  The  term  Gehenna  is  used  habitually  in  Rabbinic  literature  for  the 
place  of  punishment,  and  no  doubt  was  used  much  earlier,  as  the  references 
to  the  accursed  valley  in  Enoch  show;  but  the  earliest  actual  use  of  the 
term  outside  the  New  Testament  appears  to  be  in  IV.  Ezra,  vii.  36  (ed. 
Box,  p.  124).  The  furnace  of  Gehenna  shall  be  made  manifest  aitd  over  against 
it  the  Paradise  of  delight.  Of  course,  it  is  quite  easy  to  rewrite  other  pas- 
sages so  as  to  get  it  in,  as  Charles  does  {Assumpt.  Mosis  x.  10). 
^  Enoch  xxvii.  2. 


ISO  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

that  they  rather  describe  the  human  being  from  a  particular 
point  of  view  than  represent  some  particular  part  of  a  man, 
a  means  of  dividing  him  up  according  to  different  elements 
of  which  he  was  believed  to  be  composed.  The  heart/ 
for  example,  was  looked  upon  as  the  place  where  what 
we  call  the  mental  and  emotional  functions  of  a  man 
have  their  seat.  It  might  be  used  in  a  purely  physical 
sense.  It  might  be  looked  upon  as  the  seat  of  thoughts, 
of  passions,  of  appetites  and  affections.  It  might  be  used 
of  the  understanding,  of  the  will  and  character.  It  might 
be  used  generally  of  the  whole  inner  man.  It  represents 
the  human  personality  as  looked  at  from  the  point  of  view 
of  what  was  believed  to  be  the  physical  location  of  its 
higher  being.  We  can  use  the  word  in  almost  exactly  the 
same  way,  but  with  us  it  is  the  survival  of  an  archaic 
phraseology,  and  is  consciously  metaphorical. 

The  word  "soul"^  or  psyche  meant  the  principle  of  life, 
the  ultimate  cause  which  makes  a  man  an  animated  living 
being,  and  as  all  his  mental  characteristics  were  supposed 
to  be  derived  from  this  living  principle,  it  came  to  mean 
the  soul  as  the  seat  of   feelings,  desires,  and  affections,  and 

^  Heart,  KapSia,  Heb.  ^7,  ^^7  (Icb,  lebab),  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament 
of  tlie  inner  life  257  times,  of  the  emotions  166  times,  of  the  intellect  204, 
of  volition  195.  In  the  Gospels  (Mt.  17;  Mc.  12;  Lc.  23;  Jn.  7)  it  is 
used  of  the  inner  man,  as  "God  knoweth  our  hearts"  (Lc.  xvi.  15),  "Let 
not  your  heart  be  troubled"  (Jn.  xiv.  i);  of  the  emotions  (Mt.  xxii.  37): 
"Thou  shalt  love  with  all  thy  heart"  (here  it  is  coupled  with  "soul");  of 
the  intellect  (Lc.  v.  22):  "Why  do  ye  reason  in  your  hearts?"  (Mt.  xiii. 
15);  of  the  will  or  purpose  (Mt.  vi.  21):  "Where  your  treasure  is  there  will 
your  heart  be";  of  the  moral  nature  (Mt.  v.  8):  "the  pure  in  heart." 
It  may  be  the  source  of  good  or  evil:  "From  within  out  of  the  heart  of 
man  proceed  evil  thoughts,  fornication,  theft,  murders,"  etc.  (Mc.  vii.  21); 
so  (Jn.  xiii.  2)  the  devil  puts  it  into  the  heart  of  Judas  to  betray  Jesus. 
The  heart  rather  than  the  flesh  seems  to  be  the  home  of  evil.  "We  still 
use  the  term  '  heart '  in  a  popular  psychical  sense,  but  every  educated  man 
knows  that  he  is  using  it  metaphorically.  What  the  educated  man  fre- 
quently does  not  know,  or,  at  any  rate,  forgets,  is  the  fact  that  such  usage 
is  not  metaphor  in  the  Bible,  but  represents  the  extent  of  current  scientific 
knowledge"  (H.  Wheeler  Robinson,  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Man,  pp.  21, 
22). 

^  Soul,  \l/vxr),  Heb.  ^'^?  (nephesh),  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  of  the 
principle  of  life  (282  times),  in  a  psychical  sense  (249),  of  the  person  (223). 
The  starting-point  is  animistic;    "the  actual  principle  of  life  is  credited  with 


THE  PSYCHOLOGY  OF  THE   GOSPELS       121 

has  often  just  the  same  meaning  as  the  heart.  As  in  these 
characteristics  might  be  held  to  He  the  true  nature  of  the 
man,  it  might  be  used  as  our  word  "personality";  and  as 
it  was  that  which  constituted  the  source  of  being,  it  was 
looked  upon  as  that  which  gave  permanence  to  man,  which 
was  not  dissolved  by  death,  which  in  a  particular  way 
survived  the  life  in  this  world.  While  it  might  represent 
higher  functions  than  the  body,  it  might  be  used  in  contrast 
to  the  spirit,  as  something  characteristically  human,  as 
opposed  to  what  was  spiritual  and  in  harmony  with  the 
divine. 

Similar,  and  yet  different  in  range,  was  the  use  of  the 
word  "spirit."^  The  breath  which  animates  and  vivifies  the 
body  —  something  invisible,  unseen,  and  yet  potent  in  its 
force  —  might  be  looked  upon  as  the  source  of  all  that  was 
highest  in  him.  So  it  might  be  used  of  his  rational  nature, 
of  his  will,  of  his  desires.  It  might  seem  sometimes  to  be 
used  in  the  same  way  as  the  soul  for  the  more  permanent 
element  in  human  nature,  or  it  might  be  contrasted  with 
the  soul  as  representing  something  akin  to  the  divine  in 
antithesis  to  what  was  human.  It  was  a  man's  self,  or  his 
higher  self,  or  it  might  be  that  element  in  him  which  re- 
its  emotional  manifestations,  and  at  the  same  time  may  denote  their  sub- 
ject or  agent"  (Wheeler,  op.  cit.,  p.  17).  In  the  Gospels  (Mt.  16;  Mc. 
9;  Lc.  14;  Jn.  10)  its  primary  meaning  is  life  —  Mt.  xx.  28:  "to  give  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many";  as  such  it  is  coupled  with  the  body:  "Take 
no  thought  for  your  life  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  your  body  what  ye  shall  put 
on"  (Mt.  vi.  25),  but  it  comes  to  be  used  of  the  soul  or  principle  of  hfe 
which  is  more  permanent  than  the  body:  "Fear  not  those  that  are  able 
to  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul";  "  Fear  rather  him  that 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell"  (Mt.  x.  28);  and  hence 
the  two  meanings  "life"  and  "soul"  are  contrasted.  "He  that  seeks  to 
save  his  life  shall  lose  it,  and  he  that  loseth  his  life  for  my  sake  shall  find 
it"  (Mt.  X.  39).  As  in  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  used  of  man's  psychical 
nature:  "Ye  shall  find  rest  for  your  souls"  (Mt.  xi.  29);  as  the  seat  of 
the  emotions:  "My  soul  is  very  sorrowful"  (Mt.  xxvi.  28);  "Now  is  my 
soul  troubled"  (Jn.  xii.  27).     In  this  sense  it  corresponds  to  KapSia. 

^  The  spirit,  irvtvfj.a,  Heb.  ^"^"^  (ruach),  occurs  with  considerable  fre- 
quency in  all  the  Gospels,  but  with  great  variety  of  usage  and  rarely  with 
a  psychological  meaning.  Generally  it  is  used  either  of  the  Divine  Spirit 
or  of  evil  spirits.  It  is  contrasted  with  the  flesh  once  in  our  Lord's  words 
(Mc.  xiv.  38),  but  it  is  not  used  normally  as  it  is  in  St.  Paul  of  the  human 
spirit. 


122  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

sponded  to  the  influence  of  God's  Spirit,  or  of  the  power 
of  evil.  There  were  spiritual  powers  or  principles  in  the 
world,  good  or  bad,  and  what  was  spiritual  in  man  was 
easily  influenced  by  spirits  outside. 

Looked  at  from  the  material  side  a  man  might  be  described 
as  body^  or  flesh.  As  a  body  he  was  looked  upon  as  an 
organism,  a  being  composed  of  many  parts  rationally  bound 
together;  as  flesh  or  flesh  and  blood  he  was  looked  at  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  material  of  which  he  was  formed. 
As  a  man  was  known  by  his  bodily  form,  the  term  "body" 
might  convey  the  meaning  of  personaHty,  and  the  human 
body  was  conceived  of  in  some  form  or  other  as  surviving 
death  —  both  soul  and  body  suffer  in  Gehenna. 

The  term  "  flesh  "^  meant  originally  the  material  substance 
out  of  which  a  man  is  formed.  But  that  material  substance 
was  conceived  as  in  a  sense  the  seat  of  everything  in  man 
which  was  not  divine.  It  would  include,  therefore,  his 
whole  human  nature  —  his  desires  and  affections  so  far  as 
they  seem  to  be  associated  with  his  fleshly  nature.  The 
natural  body  might  be  the  home  of  evil  influences,  so  it 
might  be  used  in  contrast  to  the  spirit,  yet  it  was  never 
looked  at  as  necessarily  evil.  It  might  be  cleansed  and 
purified,  just  as  the  spirit  might  become  evil. 

No  single  one  of  these  terms  used  psychologically  implies 
a  separate  function  of  mankind  or  a  separate  division  of 
the  human  being  apart  from  other  divisions.  A  more 
correct  explanation  is  to  say  that  each  of  them  looks  at 
the  human  personality  from  a  particular  point  of  view. 
No  one  of  them  was  the  source  of  evil  in  mankind;  each  of 
them  might  be  dominated  by  evil  or  by  good.  They 
represent  aspects,  not  parts  of  a  man.  Hence  there  is  no 
dualism  in  the  conception  of  human  nature.     The  future 

^  The  body,  auna,  is  the  human  body  looked  on  as  an  organism,  and  is 
the  visible  and  material  aspect  of  man's  personality.  It  is  vitalized  by  the 
\pvxr],  and  inspired  by  the  irvevna,  but  it  is  a  necessary,  an  inseparable,  and 
permanent  part  of  man.  Soul  and  body  alike  suffer  in  Gehenna  (Mt.  x. 
28). 

^  The  flesh  {aapi,  Heb.  "'''?'?,  basar)  is  not  of  frequent  recurrence  in  the 
Gospels,  and  does  not  have  the  importance  it  possesses  as  a  psychological  term 
in  St.  Paul  (Mt.  3:  Mc.  3;  Lc.   i;  Jn.  ii.)     Flesh  and  blood  represent  the 


THE   FLESH  123 

life  was  conceived  of  as  lived  in  the  body.  At  the  Resur- 
rection the  body  arose,  although  it  would  be  transformed 
and  purified.  If  a  man  were  evil,  evil  permeated  his  whole 
being;  if  a  man  were  good,  his  nature  would  be  transformed. 
It  would  not  be  destroyed. 

Neither  the  source  of  good  nor  the  source  of  evil  lay  in 
a  man's  self.  Both  alike  came  to  him  from  outside,  for 
the  world  was  peopled  by  innumerable  spiritual  beings, 
some  good,  some  evil,  which  were  the  source  of  good  and 
ill  to  mankind. 

In  popular  thought  in  the  time  of  our  Lord,  the  lore  of 
Angels  played  a  great  part.  It  had  its  roots  in  pre-exilic 
theology,  where  the  Angel,  as  messenger  of  Jehovah,  seems 
often  to  be  identified  with  Jehovah  himself.  In  post- 
exihc  times,  whether  owing  to  Babylonian  or  Zoroastrian 
influence,  or  to  the  emergence  and  development  of  native 
beliefs,  the  doctrine  of  Angels  occupied  in  some  circles  of 
thought  and  certain  types  of  literature  a  conspicuous  place. 
The  belief  was  not,  indeed,  universal.  While  the  Essenes 
laid  great  stress  on  it,  the  Sadducees  denied  the  existence 
of  Angels  or  spirits.  The  Pharisees,  however,  the  popular 
rehgious  thought,  and  above  all  the  Apocalyptic  literature, 
were  strongly  influenced  by  it.  In  Daniel  the  Angels  are 
conspicuous;  still  more  in  Enoch.  It  tells  us  of  the  thou- 
sands of  thousands  and  ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand 
who  stood  before  the  Lord  of  Spirits.  It  enumerates  the 
four  Angels  of  the  Presence,  or,  as  they  came  to  be  called. 
Archangels:  Michael,  Raphael,  Gabriel,  Phanuel.  Special 
work  is  assigned  to  each  of  these  and  others  who  are  else- 
where mentioned  by  name.  There  are  angels  that  preside 
over  each  country  and  nation.  They  represent  the  majesty 
and  glory  of  God,  and  also  are  His  messengers  to  mankind. 

material  elements  out  of  which  a  man  is  made,  and  so  the  flesh  may  be 
used  for  the  personality:  "they  twain  shall  be  one  flesh"  (Mt.  xix.  6).  It 
is  contrasted  with  irvevfia  —  once  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  —  "the 
spirit  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak"  (Mt.  xxvi.  41;  Mc.  xiv.  38),  and  once 
in  St.  John:  "It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing" 
(Jn.  vi.  63).  But  it  is  characteristic  of  the  absence  of  anything  like  dual- 
ism in  the  use  of  the  term,  or  in  the  conception  of  the  human  personality, 
that  spiritual  communion  with  our  Lord  should  be  described  as  eating  His 
flesh  and  drinking  His  blood. 


124  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

In  particular  the  law  is  said  to  have  been  given  through 
Angels,  and  the  whole  of  the  Book  of  Jubilees  is  a  further 
revelation  which  arises  through  them.  They  guard  the 
souls  of  men,  they  control  and  have  power  over  evil  spirits, 
they  preside  over  Tartarus  and  are  the  agents  of  punish- 
ment. No  doubt  they  tilled  a  very  wide  place  in  popular 
thought.^ 

This  belief  is  reflected  in  our  Lord's  words,  but  the  place 
that  it  occupies  is  not  large.  In  one  case  in  the  Gospels 
an  Angel  is  mentioned  by  name,  but  never  by  Him.  With 
Him  they  are  spoken  of  as  the  guardians  of  mankind,  and 
especially  of  little  children;  they  represent  the  providential 
care  of  God  for  man.^  More  particularly  (as  is  natural) 
are  they  mentioned  as  the  agents  of  divine  judgment  and 
punishment.  The  Angels  shall  come  forth  and  sever  the 
wicked  from  among  the  righteous,  and  shall  cast  them  into 
the  furnace  of  fire;  "  there  shall  be  the  weeping  and  gnashing 
of  teeth."  3 

Just  as  there  are  good  spirits,  so  there  is  a  great  army  of 
evil  spirits.  Even  more  than  the  lore  of  Angels,  the  lore 
of  demons  occupied  people's  minds.  The  behef  in  them 
came  from  many  sources.  They  were  the  false  gods  of 
heathen  nations,  the  fallen  Angels,  the  offspring  of  the  sons 
of  God  and  the  daughters  of  men.*  They  had  many  and 
strange  names.  They  had  taught  mankind  all  the  evil  arts 
—  enchantments,  astrology,  omens,  fornication,  and  the  arts 
associated  with  it.  Through  them  sin  and  wickedness  had 
come  into  the  world.  Everywhere  they  were  present,  the 
source  of  evil,  suffering,  and  misery. 

This  behef,  also,  is  reflected  in  our  Lord's  words.  They 
were  under  a  supreme  head  who  is  spoken  of  as  Satan  and 

^  The  current  belief  in  Angels  can  be  illustrated  most  fully  from  the  Book 
of  Enoch.  On  their  names  see  Enoch  xx.,  xl.;  in  relation  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  nature,  Lxi.,  lo;  in  relation  to  punishment,  hii.  3;  of  the  fall  of 
Angels,  vi.;  of  the  law  given  by  Angels,  Gal.  iii.  19,  Heb.  ii.  2;  and  Jubi- 
lees, i.  27:  "And  He  said  to  the  angel  of  the  presence:  'Write  for  Moses 
from  the  beginning  of  creation  till  My  sanctuary  has  been  built  among  them 
for  all  eternity.'" 

2  Mt.  xviii.  10:  "In  heaven  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of 
my  Father  which  is  in  heaven." 

'  Mt.  xiii,  41,  42.  *  See  especially  Enoch  vi.  ^. 


ANGELS  AND   SPIRITS  125 

Beelzebub,  as  the  devil,  the  evil  one,  the  tempter.^  There 
are  also  many  subordinate  spirits.  It  must  be  recognized 
that  it  was  held  that  many  of  the  physical  and  spiritual 
evils  to  which  men  are  exposed  come  from  the  work  of  evil 
spirits;  certainly  all  forms  of  what  we  should  call  mental 
or  nervous  disease,  lunacy,  madness,  epilepsy,  and  deafness, 
dumbness,  and  blindness.  So,  also,  the  source  of  human 
wickedness  lies  in  the  temptations  of  the  evil  spirit.  It  is 
because  Satan  enters  into  his  heart  that  Judas  decides  to 
betray  Jesus;-  it  is  the  devil  that  tempts  our  Lord;  it  is 
the  evil  spirits  that  dwell  in  man  who  are  the  source  of  all 
wickedness.  Opposed  to  God  and  His  rule  is  a  kingdom 
of  evil  which  represents  the  embodiment  of  all  wickedness. 
This  does  not  take  away  human  responsibility.  It  is  only 
because  man  prepares  a  home  for  him,  and  because  his 
heart  is  empty,  swept,  and  garnished,  that  the  devil  can 
enter  in;  it  is  only  becaus'e  he  listens  to  temptation  that  he 
falls.  But  man  is  weak,  and  the  devil  is  powerful  and  subtle, 
so  that  man  easily  succumbs. 

These  two  doctrines  of  Angels  and  spirits  were  part  of  the 
popular  belief  of  the  time  and  are  reflected  in  our  Lord's 
words,  nor  is  there  any  reason  to  think  that  He  did  not 
share  the  belief.  But  they  express  two  fundamental  truths. 
The  ministry  of  Angels  signifies  the  providential  care  of 
God  for  mankind.  The  belief  in  a  personal  evil  spirit  and 
a  kingdom  of  evil  implies  that  sin  is  no  part  of  man's  nature. 
His  flesh  may  be  weak,  his  heart  may  become  full  of  evil! 
imaginings;  but  the  source  of  these  is  outside  him.  He 
listens  to  temptation,  but  it  comes  to  him.  No  part  of 
him  is  necessarily  evil,  no  part  of  him  need  be  cast  away. 
For  if  the  evil  be  cast  out  from  him  the  Divine  Spirit  of 
God  may  dwell  in  him  and  sanctify  the  whole  of  his  nature. 
It  is  not  the  material  part  of  him  that  is  the  cause  of  evil, 
and  redemption  means  not  the  destruction  but  the  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  body. 

^  Satan.  The  lore  about  Satan  was  rich  and  varied.  The  most  inter- 
esting passage  is  Job  i.  6-12,  ii.  i-io.  On  Satan  in  our  Lord's  words  see 
Mt.  iv.  10;  Mk.  iii.  23,  iv.  15,  viii.  33;  Lc.  x.  18.  The  demon  lore  in  Enoch 
is  full,  as  is  the  angel  lore.     See  especially  Enoch  xl.  7. 

^  Lc.  xxii.  3;    Jn.  xiii.  27. 


126  THE  EDUCATION   OF  JESUS 

rv 

So  far  as  may  be  judged  by  His  recorded  words,  our  Lord 
in  all  cases  spoke  in  accordance  with  the  intellectual  con- 
ceptions of  the  day.  On  any  subject  on  which  discovery  or 
advance  was  possible  for  the  human  mind  He  added  nothing 
to  thought.  It  was  not  His  work  or  function.  He  spoke 
in  the  language  and  according  to  the  ideas  of  those  whom 
He  addressed.  The  same  truth  is  true  of  the  expression  of 
His  religious  teaching.  His  teaching  was  throughout  drawn 
from  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  the  language  that  He  used 
was  in  greater  or  less  degree  the  natural  theological  language 
of  those  who  heard  Him.  Its  originality,  its  profound 
originality,  will  become  apparent  as  our  story  proceeds. 
At  present  we  are  concerned  with  the  meaning  and  origin 
of  the  terms  that  He  used,  with  the  sources  from  whence 
they  came,  and  with  the  influences  that  are  clearly  traceable 
in  His  teaching.  In  this  investigation  we  come  now  to  our 
Lord's  use  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

It  must  be  recognized,  indeed,  that  we  cannot  hope  to 
be  able  to  attain  great  exactness  in  such  a  study.  We  have 
our  Lord's  words  in  translations,  and  they  have  passed 
through  one  or  two  stages  before  our  records.  We  cannot 
analyze  His  use  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  can  that  of 
St.  Paul,  for  example.  It  is  always  possible  that  a  passage 
introduced  by  the  writer  by  way  of  illustration  has  become 
part  of  our  Lord's  words.  The  translation  into  Greek  may 
very  probably  have  been  taken  from  the  existing  transla- 
tions, and  so  we  should  be  unable  to  say  how  far  we  may 
have  the  exact  words  used.  We  cannot  make  deductions 
from  single  passages,  but  if  certain  broad  results  come  from 
our  investigation  and  we  find  that  the  same  books  have 
a  tendency  to  be  quoted  throughout  the  record,  the  results 
attained  may  be  considered  trustworthy. 

We  find  that  our  Lord  makes  a  considerable  use  of  the 
actual  words  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  not  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  to  take  from  the  originality  and  spontaneity  of  His 
teaching.  The  quotations  range  over  the  greater  part  of 
it;  they  are  numerous  from  the  Pentateuch,  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Psalms,  occasional  from  the  Historical  Books,  but 
very  rare  from  the  Wisdom  Literature.     Of  four  books  in 


THE   USE   #F   THE   SCRIPTURES  127 

particular  He  made  a  marked  use:  the  Book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, the  prophetic  expression  of  the  law,  the  Book  of 
Psalms,  the  expression  of  Israel's  spiritual  hfe,  the  Book  of 
Isaiah,  the  most  evangelical  of  the  prophets,  and  the  Book 
of  Daniel,  the  source  of  current  eschatological  thought.^  It 
will  be  found,  moreover,  that  this  indebtedness  means  not 
merely  that  great  ideas  are  drawn  from  these  books,  but 
that  there  is  that  adoption  of  words  and  phraseology  which 
we  are  accustomed  rightly  to  look  on  as  implying  intimate 
acquaintance  and  profound  study.-  We  shall  see  how  John 
Baptist  had  drawn  his  teaching  from  such  intimate  study 
of  the  prophets.  We  have  abundant  evidence  that  Jesus 
had  lived  in  the  words  of  God.  "Man  doth  not  live  by 
bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God."  The  Scriptures  were  God's  word,  and  in 
them  He  lived. 

In  doing  this  he  would  be  conforming  to  the  practice  of 
all  rehgious  men  in  Israel,  but  in  the  manner  of  doing  it  He 
exhibited  a  marked  contrast.  There  were  various  con- 
temporary methods  of  interpretation,  of  which  we  have  some 
considerable  knowledge.  All  these  perverted  the  sense  of 
the  Bible  or  exaggerated  some  particular  characteristic, 
and  all  these  He  deliberately  put  aside.  He  interpreted 
rather  according  to  its  most  spiritual  signification. 

Most  conspicuous  among  the  Biblical  schools  of  inter- 
pretation of  the  time  was  that  which  looked  on  the  Scrip- 
tures purely  from  a  legal  standpoint.    The  law  having  come 

^  The  following  are  the  number  of  quotations  of  each  book  as  I  have 
computed  them: 

Used  frequently:    Deuteronomy  20,  Psalms  22,  Isaiah  20,  Daniel  10. 

Less  frequently:  Genesis  7,  Exodus  9,  Leviticus  6,  Jeremiah  5,  Zechariah 
6,  Hosea  4. 

Seldom  quoted:  Numbers  i,  Samuel  2,  Kings  3,  Chronicles  i,  Proverbs 
I,  Job  I,  Ezekiel  3,  Joel  i,  Malachi  3,  Micah  2,  Jonah  i,  Zephaniah  i. 

Not  quoted:  Joshua,  Judges,  Ruth,  Ezra,  Nehemiah,  Esther,  Ecclesi- 
astes.  Canticles,  Lamentations,  Amos,  Obadiah,  Nahum,  Habakkuk,  Haggai. 

The  quotations  in  St.  John  are  less  numerous  than  in  the  other  Gospels, 
but  come  mainly  from  Psalms  and  Isaiah. 

^  Notice  in  Mt.  v.  34,  35,  how  the  words  are  taken  from  Is.  Ixvi.  i,  Ps. 
xlviii.  2,  although  the  context  is  quite  different.  Notice,  again,  the  way  in 
which  the  words  of  Mt.  xiii.  32  come  from  Dan.  iv.  12,  21. 


128  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

to  be  accepted  as  a  guide  for  life  to  which  a  scrupulous  ad- 
herence was  demanded,  it  became  necessary,  as  we  have  ex- 
plained, to  apply  it  to  every  circumstance,  and  to  interpret 
it  in  such  a  way  as  to  find  the  assistance  required.  It  be- 
came necessary  also  to  find  some  way  of  escape  from  regula- 
tions which,  if  rigidly  enforced,  would  have  been  impossible. 
So  a  gigantic  system  of  casuistry  was  built  up,  based  on  a 
hard,  a  minute,  and  a  non-natural  exegesis,  and  has  been 
preserved  to  us  in  the  pages  of  the  Talmud.  This  method 
our  Lord  not  only  repudiated,  but  explicitly  condemned. 
"Ye  make  the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  by  your  tradi- 
tion," He  said.  "If  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  shall  they  not 
both  fall  into  the  pit?" 

Then  there  was  the  Midrashic  interpretation.  This  aimed 
at  being  interesting  and  edifying.  Its  purpose  was  the 
illustration  of  moral  and  religious  truth  by  interesting 
stories.  It  rewrote  the  sacred  narrative,  and  filled  up  many 
gaps.  It  collected  a  mass  of  tradition  and  folklore.  It  was 
often  frivolous,  sometimes  indecent  and  offensive.  The 
story  of  Jannes  and  Jambres,  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  to 
Timothy,  is  an  illustration.  We  have  many  works  remain- 
ing in  which  we  can  study  it.  About  a  century  earlier  than 
our  Lord's  ministry  was  written  the  Book  of  Jubilees;  very 
probably,  somewhere  contemporary  with  it,  the  work  known 
to  us  as  Philo's  Antiquities  of  the  Jews}  The  stories,  the 
illustrations,  and  the  reconstruction  of  national  history  that 
this  method  supplied,  were  largely  used  (we  have  reason  to 
believe)  in  the  sermons  of  the  synagogue,  and  have  survived 
also  in  the  Midrashic  Commentaries.  It  is  interesting, 
perhaps  remarkable,  that  in  our  Lord's  dealing  with 
Scripture  there  is  no  trace  of  any  such  method. 

Then,  again,  there  was  the  allegorical  interpretation. 
This,  perhaps,  was  most  common  in  Hellenistic  writers.  Its 
classical  representative  is  Philo.  It  largely  influenced  the 
literature  of  Christianity.  But  it  also  prevailed  in  Palestinian 
literature,  and  we  find  examples  in  St.  Paul.     Natural  and 

^  The  first  translation  in  English,  in  a  sense  the  first  publication  which 
has  shown  its  significance,  is  that  of  Dr.  M.  R.  James,  The  Biblical  Anti- 
quities of  Philo  now  first  translated  from  the  Old  Latin  Version.  (London: 
S.P.C.K.,  1917.) 


THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE     129 

often  impressive  if  occasionally  employed  for  poetical  or 
devotional  use,  it  soon  becomes  extraordinarily  tedious,  and 
if  used  in  relation  to  doctrine,  it  may  be  made  to  prove  any- 
thing. Of  this,  again,  we  find  Httle  if  any  trace  in  our 
Lord's  teaching. 

In  contrast  to  all  these  methods,  our  Lord's  interpretation 
is  simple,  Hteral,  and*  spiritual.  He  takes  the  words  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  their  plain  and  natural  meaning,  and 
makes  them  the  vehicle  for  imparting  the  religious  truths 
which  were  not,  indeed,  derived  from  the  Old  Testament, 
but  represented  the  goal  and  end  to  which  it  pointed. 

There  is  no  reason  to  think  that  here,  any  more  than  in 
any  other  departments  of  thought,  Jesus  had  knowledge 
of  the  scientific  kind  differing  from  that  of  His  own  time. 
He  quotes  the  Pentateuch  as  the  work  of  Moses,  the  Psalms 
as  the  work  of  David.  He  knows  nothing  of  the  two  or 
more  Isaiahs  which  delight  modern  scholars.  He  knows 
nothing  of  scientific  exegesis  or  critical  history.  These  were 
matters  which  concerned  Him  as  little  as  the  correct  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies,  or  the  geological  history  of  the  earth. 
He  did  not  come  to  teach  science  or  criticism.  He  came 
to  teach  religion.  He  had  read  and  pondered  over  the 
Scriptures  in  the  Hebrew  tongue.  They  were  part  of  His 
very  being,  the  food  of  His  mind.  In  them,  as  nowhere  else, 
God  spake.  And  with  an  insight  which  was  divine  He  learnt 
from  them,  in  a  way  in  which  no  prophet  of  Israel  had  yet 
learnt,  their  message  for  mankind. 

A  careful  study  of  the  Gospels  thus  reveals  to  us  the  fact 
that,  so  far  as  regards  what  we  may  call  the  mental  equip- 
ment that  they  display,  it  is  that  of  the  writers'  own  epoch. 
We  are  not  yet  concerned  with  any  direct  enquiry  as  to  the 
nature  and  personality  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  we  are  at 
present  only  concerned  with  an  examination  of  the  evidence 
which  the  records  that  we  possess  yield,  and  it  is  undoubted 
that  they  do  not  reveal  any  secular  knowledge  which  trans- 
cends the  natural  environment  of  the  time.  Although 
the  Gospels  which  we  possess  are  written  in  Greek,  there  are 
signs  that  they  record  speeches  which  were  originally  de- 
livered in  Aramaic,  the  language  current  in  Palestine  at  the 
beginning  of   the  first  century.     The  religious  phraseology, 


I30  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

the  conception  of  the  universe,  the  psychology,  the  scientific 
ideas,  the  social  conditions  are  all  those  of  His  own  genera- 
tion. If  we  are  to  understand  them  aright,  it  can  only  be 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  time  when  they  were  written, 
and  of  the  conditions  of  thought  that  prevailed.  Jesus 
speaks  in  the  language  of  the  day;  He  is  concerned  with  the 
thoughts  and  aspirations  then  current.  His  words  would 
be  such  as  would  be  comprehensible  to  any  peasant  of 
Nazareth  or  fisherman  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  We  must 
learn  to  interpret  Him  from  His  environment. 

But  this  investigation  into  the  conditions  of  His  environ- 
ment will  give  us  further  assistance.  It  will  form  a  not 
inadequate  means  of  testing  the  authenticity  of  our  Lord's 
teaching.  We  know  that  its  starting-point  must  have  been 
the  Old  Testament  rehgion,  and  in  particular  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  A  test  of  the  teaching  ascribed 
to  Him,  which  may  be  appHed  with  some  degree  of  certainty, 
will  be  whether  it  is  of  such  a  character  as  might  reasonably, 
so  far  as  the  vehicle  of  expression  goes,  be  derived  from 
those  Scriptures,  or  from  the  current  religious  conceptions 
of  the  day.  For  it  is  as  true  of  the  form  in  which  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord  is  given  as  of  His  other  intellectual 
characteristics  that  it  must  be  natural  to  the  day.  There 
must  be  no  anachronism  in  it. 

Let  us  apply  this  principle  in  certain  details.  We  have 
seen  that  one  of  the  books  which,  as  is  shown  by  clear  signs, 
had  influenced  the  mind  of  Jesus  is  the  Book  of  Daniel. 
Amongst  the  most  interesting  and,  in  some  ways,  novel 
conceptions  of  that  book  is  that  of  the  kingdom  of  God: 
*'And  in  the  days  of  those  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven 
set  up  a  kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  nor  shall 
the  sovereignty  thereof  be  left  to  another  people;  but  it  shall 
break  in  pieces  and  consume  all  these  kingdoms,  and  it  shall 
stand  for  ever."^  "His  kingdom  is  an  everlasting  dominion, 
and  all  dominions  shall  serve  and  obey  him."^  The  ex- 
pression was,  in  this  definite  form,  novel,  although  it  was 
the  natural  and  legitimate  interpretation  of  the  visions  of 
the  prophets  who  had  described  in  such  glowing  colours  the 

1  Dan.  ii.  44.  ^  Dan.  vii.  27. 


RELIGIOUS   PHRASEOLOGY  131 

day  of  the  Lord.  It  is  this  expression  —  probably  one  that 
had  become  common  in  current  phraseology  —  that  Jesus 
adopts,  and  makes  the  central  feature  of  His  teaching  and 
thought.  Through  it  He  presented  His  ethical,  religious, 
and  social  Gospel. 

A  study  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  of  the  prophet  Isaiah, 
and  of  Daniel  will  present  us  with  a  series  of  titles,  some  of 
which  already  had  been  used  with  a  Messianic  signification, 
some  had  not.  The  Psalms  spoke  of  the  anointed  King,  who 
was  also  the  Son  of  God;  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  in  its  later 
chapters,  had  pictured  the  servant  of  Jehovah  as  one 
through  whom  the  hopes  of  Israel  would  be  fulfilled;  Daniel 
had  seen  the  vision  of  one  like  unto  a  Son  of  Man  exalted  in 
glory.  It  seems  entirely  natural  that  it  should  be  through 
these  titles  that  our  Lord  should  present  His  mission.  He 
had  learnt  them  from  the  books  that  He  had  read,  and  they 
were  titles  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  recognized  and  known. 
In  and  through  them  He  had  thought  of  His  mission.  In 
and  through  them  He  taught  it. 

But  the  Book  of  Isaiah  revealed  other  traits  which  He  had 
learnt.  He  had  thought  of  Himself  as  the  Servant  of 
Jehovah  "who  would  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the 
Lord."  But  the  servant  had  been  depicted  as  one  whose 
lot  was  suffering,  rejection,  scorn,  sorrow;  as  one  who  was 
to  bear  other  persons'  transgressions  and  sorrows,  who  was 
an  offering  for  sin,  to  bear  the  sins  of  others,  whose  triumph 
would  come  through  his  suffering.  So  from  the  beginning 
there  is  a  note  of  sorrow  in  His  teaching,  an  expectation  of 
the  end,  a  conception  of  Himself  not  as  triumphant,  but  as 
rejected,  a  knowledge  that  it  was  through  His  death 
salvation  would  come. 

If  we  take  all  the  main  lines  of  thought  which  we  find 
in  the  Gospel  teaching,  it  will  become  apparent  that  it  has 
its  root  and  starting-point  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  as 
interpreted  conventionally,  but  as  Jesus  would  read  it.  All 
these  ideas  are  natural  to  the  time  and  situation,  and 
therefore  we  may  with  full  confidence  accept  the  teaching 
as  original  and  authentic.  We  may  study  it  as  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  not  merely  of  the  Church.  For  the  new  conception, 
which  in  this  case  is  the  realization  of  the  spiritual  signi- 


132  THE  EDUCATION  OF  JESUS 

ficance  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  the  work,  not  of  the  suc- 
cessors, but  of  the  founder.  It  was  He  who  had  studied  the 
Scriptures  as  no  one  had  ever  done  before,  and  saw  what 
they  meant  and  to  what  they  pointed. 

This  was  the  starting-point.  But  through  His  divine 
impulse  was  thus  created  a  germinant  idea,  simple  and 
almost  unimpressive  in  its  origin,  which  became  the  source 
of  new  spiritual  life  to  all  future  generations,  continually 
reveahng  deeper  potentialities.  It  is  the  history  of  this 
idea,  which  begins  in  the  transformation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, that  we  have  to  trace. 


CHAPTER  III 

JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

When  Pontius  Pilate  became  governor  of  Judaea  it  was 
not  an  unnatural  expectation  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was 
at  hand.  The  religious-minded  Israelite  had  grievously 
suffered.  Since  the  great  days  of  the  Maccabees  blow  had 
fallen  upon  blow.  The  failure  of  the  high-priestly  dynasty, 
the  coming  of  the  Romans,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  the  con- 
tinuous devastation  of  foreign  and  domestic  warfare,  the 
insolence  of  Herod  and  his  sons,  the  loss  of  independence, 
and  the  outrage  of  foreign  taxation  imposed  on  the  holy 
people  —  were  not  these  the  birth-pangs  of  the  Messiah?  ^ 
And  now  in  the  place  of  a  succession  of  governors  who,  if 
foreigners,  had  governed  with  some  measure  of  justice,  had 
come  Pontius  Pilate,  deliberately  sent,  as  it  seems,  by  Se- 
janus  to  insult  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  and  marking  the 
culmination  of  the  infamy. 

Nor  if  he  turned  to  the  rulers  among  his  own  people  had 
such  an  Israelite  any  ground  for  consolation.  An  almost 
contemporary  writer,  the  author  of  the  Assumption  of 
Moses,^  who  lived  shortly  after  the  beginning  of  the  century, 
tells  of  the  rule  of  pestilent  and  insolent  men  claiming  to  be 
righteous,  of  their  avariciousness  and  their  gluttony.  They 
were  devourers  of  poor  men's  houses,  under  pretence  of 
justice.  They  were  full  of  iniquity;  from  sunrise  to  sunset 
they  cried:  "  Give  us  banquets  and  luxury,  let  us  eat  and  drink, 
so  will  we  reckon  ourselves  great  men."  They  trafficked  with 
the  unclean;  they  spoke  great  words:  "Touch  me  not  lest 
thou  shouldst  pollute  me  where  I  stand."  It  is  the  popular 
judgment  on  the  Sadducean  aristocracy,  the  arrogant  and 

*  On  the  "birth-pangs,"  a  regular  Messianic  phrase  (Mk.  xiii.  8),  or 
woes  of  the  Messiah,  see  Volz,  Jiidische  Eschatologie,  p.  ijsff. 

2  On  the  Assumption  of  Moses  see  above,  p.  50,  the  edition  of  Charles, 
1897,  and  in  Apocrypha  and  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  Old  Testament,  ed.  Charles, 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  407-424,  and  Schiirer,  Geschichte,  iii.,  p.  213. 

133 


134  JOHN  THE   BAPTIST 

avaricious  sons  of  Annas.  But  does  not  the  writer  suggest 
also  that  the  pious  Jew  resented  the  rehgious  pretensions  of 
the  Pharisees,  who  claimed  to  be  pre-eminently  the  just,  and 
to  preserve  their  purity  by  keeping  themselves  aloof  from  the 
common  herd?  We  shall  hear  later  a  repetition  of  these 
charges  from  more  authoritative  sources. 

The  writer  proceeds  to  describe  the  future  as  he  imagined  it. 
There  will  come  a  period  of  great  wrath  and  vengeance  for  all 
such,  and  a  time  of  renewed  and  more  violent  persecution,  and 
the  righteous  shall  perish.  Then  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  ap- 
pear, and  the  devil  shall  have  an  end,  and  sadness  shall  be 
taken  away.  The  Heavenly  One  shall  arise  from  the  throne  of 
His  kingdom,  and  shall  come  out  of  His  holy  habitation  with 
indignation  and  wrath  for  His  children.  The  earth  shall  quake, 
the  heavens  be  darkened,  the  sea  shall  fall  into  the  abyss,  the 
fountains  of  waters  shall  fail,  because  the  Most  High  God, 
the  Eternal,  the  Only  God  shall  arise  to  punish  the  nations. 

"Then  shalt  thou  be  happy,  thou  O  Israel, 
And  shalt  mount  on  the  neck  and  wings  of  the  eagle, 
And  the  days  of  thy  sorrow  shall  be  ended, 
And  God  shall  exalt  thee 
And  bring  thee  to  the  heaven  of  the  stars, 
The  place  of  his  habitation. 

And  thou  shalt  look  from  on  high,  and  behold  thy  adversaries  on  the  earth 
And  shalt  know  them  and  rejoice, 
And  give  thanks,  and  acknowledge  thy  Creator." 

The  preservation  of  this  document  illustrates  for  us 
the  bitterness,  the  suffering,  and  the  expectations,  half 
religious,  half  secular,  of  the  times  when  John  the  Baptist 
and  our  Lord  preached.  There  was  the  soil  in  which  the 
seeds  of  teaching  might  quickly  grow  and  fructify.  There 
was  an  anxious  and  wistful  hope  among  the  people  who  were 
soon  to  hear  proclaimed  more  authoritatively  than  ever 
before,  but  in  a  novel  and  unexpected  way,  the  cry,  "The 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand." 

I 

It  was  in  the  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  ^  —  that  is,  some- 
time between  August  a.d.  28  and  August  a.d.  29  —  that  a 

^  The  fifteenth  year  of  Tiberius  was  counted  from  August  19,  a.d.  28, 
to  August  18,  A.D.  29.    On  this  date  see  the  Chronological  Notes. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  HIS   MINISTRY        135 

new  prophet  appeared  in  Israel,  the  last  of  the  great  roll  of 
the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation.*  John,  the  son  of 
Zacharias  and  his  wife  Elisabeth,  was  of  priestly  race.-  He 
was  born  of  pious  parents  —  "they  were  both  righteous  be- 
fore God,  walking  in  all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  blame- 
less"—  who  dwelt  not  in  Jerusalem  among  the  great 
famihes  of  the  priests,  but  in  the  hill  country  of  Judaea,  the 
home  of  Jewish  piety.  It  was  said  of  him  that  from  his 
earliest  years,  like  a  Nazirite,  he  drank  no  wine  nor  strong 
drink.  Even  from  his  mother's  womb  he  was  filled  with  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Like  many  other  Israelites,  like  Elijah  in  the 
wilderness  of  Beersheba,  like  Amos  the  herdsman  of  Tekoa 
in  the  same  uplands,  he  found  in  the  solitudes  of  that  un- 
inhabited land  a  place  for  contemplation  and  life  with  God. 
There  were  others  in  those  hard  times  who  sought  solitude 
among  these  mountains.  The  hills  above  the  Dead  Sea  were 
the  home  of  the  Essenes,  and  Josephus  tells  us  how  he  be- 
came the  disciple  for  three  years  of  a  certain  Bannus  who 

^  Our  sources  for  our  knowledge  of  John  the  Baptist  are — (i)  Certain 
passages  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  viz.,  Mk.  i.  2-1 1,  14;  ii.  18;  vi.  14-29;  xl. 
3o~33-  (2)  A  considerable  number  of  passages  found  in  St.  Matthew  and 
St.  Luke  and  undoubtedly  derived  from  Tlie  Discourses:  (o)  Mt.  iii.  7-17; 
Lk.  iii.  7-17;  {b)  Mt.  xi.  2-19;  Lk.  vii.  18-27,  3i~3S;  ^vi.  16.  The  ac- 
count of  these  Gospels  of  John's  preaching  and  baptism  is  formed  by  a  com- 
bination of  the  material  in  St.  Mark  and  The  Discourses.  The  information 
in  the  latter  concerning  John's  teaching  seems  to  be  particularly  good.  (3) 
Some  passages  given  by  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Luke  alone.  There  seems  no 
reason  why  these  also  should  not  be  derived  from  The  Discourses,  as  there 
is  no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  common  matter  exhausted  the  contents 
of  that  document.  There  was  nothing  about  him  derived  from  the  Lucan 
special  sources.  (4)  The  birth  narratives  in  Lk.  i.  (5)  Independent  tra- 
ditions given  by  St.  John  (Jn.  i.  19-42;  iii.  22-36;  iv.  1-3).  Much  diversity 
of  opinion  prevails  about  them.  By  some  they  are  looked  upon  as  not  his- 
torical at  all.  They  are  used  with  some  criticism,  but  with  little  hesitation 
in  the  present  account.  (6)  An  account  contained  in  Josephus,  AntL,  xviii., 
116-119.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of  this  passage. 
See  Schiirer,  Geschichte^^,  i.,  436-439;    Abrahams,  Studies,  p.  30. 

^  Lk.  i.  5.  Cf.  The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  in  Hilgenfeld,  Novum 
Testamentum  extra  canonem  reccptum,  iv.,  33.  But  there  is  no  reason  for 
thinking  this  latter  to  be  an  independent  authority.  How  far  the  stories 
in  the  first  chapter  of  St.  Luke  are  historical  we  cannot  tell,  but  the  con- 
ceptions of  John's  ministry  and  of  the  Messiah  implied  in  them  are  early 
and  of  great  interest. 


136  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

lived  in  the  desert,  and  "used  no  other  clothing  than  that 
which  came  from  the  trees  and  had  no  other  food  than  what 
grew  of  its  own  accord,  and  bathed  himself  in  cold  water 
frequently,  both  by  night  and  day,  to  preserve  his  purity."^ 
So  John  also  was  in  the  desert  until  his  showing  unto  Israel. 

To  him,  as  to  Jeremiah,  as  to  any  other  Old  Testament 
prophet,  there  came  the  word  of  God  —  that  is,  the  clear 
and  certain  conviction  that  he  was  entrusted  with  a  definite 
message  for  the  people,  and  from  his  desert  retreat  he  went 
out  to  preach  to  them.  In  appearance,  too,  he  was  like 
the  prophets  of  old.  Like  Elijah  he  wore  a  rough  mantle 
of  camel's  hair  and  a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins,  and  his 
long  hair  streamed  down  over  his  shoulders.  He  had  lived 
on  such  food  as  the  desert  produced — locusts  and  wild  honey. 

His  message,  too,  was  simple,  as  had  been  those  of  the 
prophets.  He  was  essentially  a  messenger  of  righteousness. 
''He  bid  the  Jews,"  said  Josephus,  writing  so  as  to  suit 
Greek  taste,  "to  practise  virtue  and  righteousness  towards 
one  another  and  piety  towards  God."  He  came  "in  the 
way  of  righteousness,"  said  our  Lord.  "Many  of  the 
children  of  Israel,"  the  angel  Gabriel  is  represented  as 
foretelhng,  "shall  he  turn  unto  the  Lord  their  God.  He 
shall  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord  in  the  spirit  and  power 
of  Elijah,  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  to  the  children, 
and  the  disobedient  to  walk  in  the  wisdom  of  the  righteous." 

The  burden  of  his  preaching  was:  "Repent,  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand."  The  great  day  of  the  Lord 
would  shortly  come,  the  advent  of  the  Messiah  was  near. 
"The  axe  was  laid  to  the  root  of  the  tree."  The  Messiah 
would  come  for  judgment.  "Every  tree,  therefore,  that 
brought  not  forth  good  fruit,  would  be  hewn  down  and  cast 
into  the  fire."  All  men  must  prepare  for  this  judgment 
by  turning  away  from  their  sins,  by  a  change  of  heart  and 
hfe. 

As  a  sign  of  this  changed  life,  and  the  washing  away  of 
sins,  those  that  came  to  him  were  baptized.  The  symbolism 
of  washing  as  a  sign  of  spiritual  cleansing  is  almost  universal, 
and  prevailed  widely  in  the  Greco-Roman  world. ^     To  be 

^  Josephus,  Life,  §  ii. 

^  See  the  article  on  Baptism  in  Hastings,  Encyclopaedia  of  Religion  and 


THE  BAPTISM  OF  JOHN  137 

more  correct,  of  course,  it  is  true  to  say  that  the  idea  of 
spiritual  purity  was  developed  out  of  the  physical  purity 
which  was  so  often  an  indispensable  condition  of  early 
religious  rites.  Baptism  began  by  being  what  we  now  term 
ceremonial,  although  it  did  not  so  appear  in  earlier  times, 
and  then  became  moral  in  its  significance,  and  often  it  is 
difhcult  to  distinguish  the  two  ideas.  Among  the  Jews  the 
demand  for  ritual  purity  was  exacting,  and  in  order  to  attain 
it  there  were  both  for  priests  and  people  strict  rules  for 
lustrations.  Water,  too,  became  looked  upon  as  a  symbol 
for  repentance,  and  a  custom  grew  up  at  some  uncertain 
time  in  the  history  of  Judaism  of  bathing  on  the  eve  of  the 
Atonement  with  confession  of  sins.^  Among  the  rehgious 
devotees,  also,  of  this  time  ceremonial  and  sacramental 
washings,  for  they  are  not  easily  distinguished,  were  common. 
We  know  of  them  among  the  Essenes,  the  instance  of  Ban- 
nus  has  been  quoted,  and  now  or  at  a  somewhat  later  period 
arose  the  sect  of  Hemerobaptists,  who  are  stated  to  have 
been  distinguished,  as  their  name  implies,  by  a  habit  of 
daily  baptism.^  A  more  important  instance  is  one  which 
may  have  been  present  in  the  mind  of  John  and  influenced 
his  language.  Certainly  at  a  later  date,  almost  certainly  in 
the  days  of  which  we  are  speaking,  it  was  the  rule  that  all 
heathen  who  became  Jews  should  be  baptized.^  From  men 
circumcision,  baptism,  and  sacrifice  were  required;  from 
women  (who  were  the  larger  number),  baptism  and  sacrifice. 
The  purpose  of  this  baptism  was,  primarily  at  any  rate, 
ceremonial.  The  heathen  were  in  a  state  of  uncleanness, 
and  only  if  ritually  clean  could  they  be  received  "under  the 
wings  of  the  divine  presence,"  so  proselytism  was  described. 
There  is,  in  fact,  abundant  evidence  that  baptism  was  a 

Ethics,  vol.  ii.,  which  collects  together  the  customs  of  a  large  number  of 
different  races. 

1  See  Abrahams,  Studies,  pp.  36/.,  Pharisaic  Baptism. 

2  On  the  Hemerobaptists  see  Hegesippus  ap.  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  iv., 
22;   Epiphanius,  Panarion,  I.,  i.,  17,  p.  37,  ed.  Petavius. 

3  On  the  baptism  of  proselytes  see  Schurer,  Geschichte^,  iii.,  129-132; 
Edersheim,  Jesus  tlie  Messiah^,  ii.,  745;  Ahraha.m5,  Studies  in  Pharisaism 
attd  the  Gospels,  iv.,  pp.  36-46.  There  seems  quite  adequate  evidence  for 
the  custom  of  baptizing  proselytes  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  (i)  "The 
heathen  was  in  a  state  of  uncleanness,  and  must  at  least  as  emphatically 


138  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

recognized  symbol  of  moral  purification,  and  a  sign  of  the 
entry  into  a  new  life. 

But  none  of  these  were  the  direct  source  of  the  Baptist's 
action.  It  must  be  recognized,  and  it  will  become  more 
apparent  as  our  history  proceeds,  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
last  prophet  was  drawn  directly  from  the  prophetical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  these  baptism  appears  as  a 
definite  sign  of  the  Messianic  age.  "I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you,"  it  is  said  in  Ezekiel,^  "and  ye  shall  be 
clean:  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols,  will 
I  cleanse  you."  "O  Jerusalem,"  said  Jeremiah,  "wash 
thine  heart  from  wickedness,  that  thou  mayest  be  saved." ^ 
"In  that  day,"  said  Zechariah,  "there  will  be  a  fountain 
opened  to  the  house  of  David,  and  to  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  for  sin  and  for  uncleanness."^  Let  us  remember 
that  John  in  his  desert  retreat  was  not  only  communing  with 
nature,  but  with  the  word  of  God.  That  as  he  pondered 
over  the  Scriptures,  and  read  the  signs  of  the  times,  he 
became  convinced  that  the  day  of  the  Messiah  was  at  hand, 

as  the  Jew  in  a  similar  state  have  undergone  the  ritual  of  bathing.  Only 
in  a  state  of  ritual  cleanness  would  the  newcomer  be  received  'under  the 
Wings  of  the  Divine  Presence '  —  a  common  Rabbinic  phrase  for  prosely- 
tism"  (Abrahams,  p.  36).  (2)  The  Mishna  has  the  following  ruling:  "A 
stranger  who  was  proselytized  on  the  eve  of  the  passover?  "  The  school  of 
Shammai  says,  "He  may  be  baptized  and  eat  his  passover  in  the  evening"; 
but  the  school  of  Hillel  says,  "He  who  has  just  departed  from  the  foreskin 
is  as  legally  unclean  as  he  who  just  departs  from  the  grave"  {Pesachim, 
viii.,  8).  (3)  A  story  told  in  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  strengthens  this. 
"Rabbi  Eleazar  ben  Jacob  says:  Soldiers  were  guards  of  the  gates  in  Jeru- 
salem; they  were  baptized  and  ate  their  paschal  lambs  in  the  evening" 
{T.  J.  Pesachim,  viii.;  Tosefta  Pesachim,  vii.,  13).  This  must  have  been 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  (4)  The  ordinary  Jewish  rule  laid 
down  three  rites  for  the  reception  of  proselytes:  circumcision,  baptism,  sac- 
rifice. This  rule  must  be  earlier  in  its  origin  than  the  destruction  of  the 
temple.  (5)  On  the  other  hand,  I  do  not  feel  that  the  passage  of  the  Sibyl- 
line Oracles,  iv.,  165,  which  demands  baptism  and  repentance  for  the  world, 
can  be  quoted,  as  it  seems  to  me  Christian  and  not  Jewish.  A  Jewish  docu- 
ment would  not  omit  every  distinctive  Jewish  rite.  While  there  is,  there- 
fore, sufficient  evidence  for  the  rite,  there  seems  little  reason  for  seeing  in 
it  the  origin  of  John's  baptism,  for  it  was  ceremonial  in  character,  and  only 
intended  to  produce  the  necessary  ceremonial  purity. 

^  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25.  ^  Jer.  iv.  14.  ^  Zech.  xiii.  i. 


MESSIANIC  BAPTISM  139 

and  the  divine  will  called  him  to  prepare  the  way  of  the 
Lord.  From  the  Scriptures  he  would  learn  the  nature  of 
the  last  things,  the  signs  of  the  coming,  and  the  way  to 
prepare.  Baptism  with  water  was,  it  seemed,  clearly  laid 
down  as  part  of  the  method  of  preparation,  and  so  in 
obedience  to  the  word  of  God,  as  the  prophets  had  foretold, 
he  called  people  to  baptism  in  direct  preparation  for  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah.^ 

The  condition  of  this  baptism  which  John  preached  was 
repentance;  it  was  accompanied  by  a  confession  of  sins,  and 
its  result  would  be  in  the  Messianic  times  which  were  to 
come  a  remission  of  sins.  The  exhortation  of  the  Baptist 
was  to  repent.  Once  more  we  have  an  echo  of  the  prophets' 
message:  "Return  unto  me,  and  I  will  return  unto  you, 
saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  ^  "O  Israel,  return  unto  the  Lord 
thy  God."^  "Wash  you,  make  you  clean,"  said  Isaiah; 
"put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  mine  eyes; 
cease  to  do  evil;  learn  to  do  well,  seek  judgment,  relieve 
the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  for  the  widow."* 
Ezekiel  had  spoken  of  the  clean  heart,  the  result  of  sprin- 
kHng.  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you  .  .  .  and  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give 
you  a  heart  of  flesh." ^  The  meaning  of  this  Messianic  bap- 
tism was  to  turn  away  from  sin,  and  to  change  the  heart, 
and  to  turn  unto  the  Lord  as  the  Prophets  had  always 
preached.^     So  all  who  came   to  John  to  be  baptized  must 

^  The  word  "baptism"  is  one  of  those  which  are  a  new  creation.  The 
verb  /SaTrrifoj  was  used  in  classical  writers  as  the  intensitive  of  PdirTu,  and 
seems  generally  to  have  implied  being  overwhelmed  in  the  water,  totally 
immersed.  It  was  rarely  used  in  the  LXX.  The  nouns  /SaTrrto-^uos,  ^airriafia, 
and  PaiTTiaTTjs  do  not  seem  to  be  used  except  of  Johannine  or  Christian 
baptism  (in  the  New  Testament  and  in  Josephus).  The  phraseology  was 
created  by  Christianity,  and  it  is  thus  a  sign  of  a  rite  with  a  new  signifi- 
cance, and,  like  some  other  of  the  fundamental  words  of  Christianity,  was 
not  derived  from  the  LXX.  It  belongs  to  the  time  when  Christianity  was 
preached  in  Aramaic,  and  the  colloquial  Aramaic  was  translated  into  Greek. 

2  Zech.  i.  3;   see  also  Mai.  iii.  7.         *  Hos.  xiv.  i.  *  Is.  i.  16,  17. 

*  Ezek.  xxxvi.  26. 

^  The  word  "repentance"  {neravodv,  ixtTavoia)  is  another  instance  of 
a  word  used  in  a  new  sense  in  Christian  literature.  In  classical  literature 
the  word  means  change  of  mind  or  after- thought;  in  the  LXX  it  is  used 
as  the  translation  of  ^^'1,  meaning  to  grieve   or  be  sorry  for  sin,  but  the 


I40  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

confess  their  sins — "they  were  baptized  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  This  was  clearly  the  necessary  preparation  for 
the  new  life.  And  the  end  of  the  Messianic  days  to  which 
this  preparation  pointed  would  be  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 
Those  who  really  confessed  and  repented  of  their  sins,  who 
changed  their  heart  and  life  and  were  baptized,  would,  when 
the  Messiah  came,  have  their  sins  forgiven,  and  be  held  fit 
for  the  Messianic  kingdom. 

So  John's  baptism  was  essentially  ethical.  The  exact 
relation  between  repentance  and  baptism,  the  relation 
between  the  symbol  and  the  thing  symbolized,  would  be  in 
this  case  as  difficult  to  define  as  it  is  really  futile  to  enquire. 
It  was  enough  to  know  that  repentance,  confession,  baptism, 
a  new  life  were  essential,  that  the  result  would  be  remission 
of  sins.^  It  is  apparently  some  such  conception  as  this 
that  Josephus  desires  to  represent  in  the  stilted  language 
in  which  he  describes  John's  baptism.  "Baptism,"  he 
said,  "would  be  acceptable  to  God,  if  it  was  looked  upon, 
not  as  a  means  of  passing  over  certain  sins,  but  as  a  purifica- 
tion of  the  body,  when  the  soul  had  already  been  purified 
by  righteousness."  That  is,  it  was  not  a  magical  formula 
which  would  bring  immunity  from  the  effects  of  sin,  it  was 
not  a  mere  ceremonial  rite,  but  its  value  depended  on  the 
cleanness  of  the  heart.  It  was  that  elevated,  ethical,  reli- 
gious ordinance  which  we  call  a  sacrament. 

Christian  use  is  for  the  prophetic  ^'^^ ^  which  means  to  turn  from  sin,  and  is 
generally  translated  by  eTnaTpt4)ui.  Its  new  meaning  is  a  transformation  and 
renewal  of  life,  a  change  from  sin,  and  a  putting  on  of  holiness.  It  is  noted 
that  neither  word  occurs  at  all  in  the  Gospel  or  Epistles  of  St.  John.  It 
is  for  the  most  part  a  Lucan  word.  "An  examination  of  these  few  passages 
would  seem  to  show  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  which  the  disciples  cared 
most  to  preserve,  did  not  directly  harp  upon  the  mere  term  and  word  're- 
pentance.' Jesus  took  a  more  original  line  of  effecting  an  end,  one  com- 
mon both  to  himself  and  to  John.  He  encouraged,  stimulated,  comforted. 
He  did  not  merely  din  a  summons  to  repentance  into  people's  ears" 
(Montefiore,  Synoptic  Gospels,  ii.,  463). 

1  Forgiveness  of  sins  {a<t>e<ns  anapTtibv)  is  an  expression  used  most  com- 
monly by  St.  Luke,  and  never  by  St.  John.  It  occurs  of  the  baptism  of 
John  in  St.  Mark,  but  was  omitted  apparently  purposely  by  St.  Matthew, 
who  uses  it  only  in  connection  with  the  Last  Supper.  It  is  used  here  of  the 
characteristics  of  .the  Messianic  Age.  It  became  the  distinctive  expression 
used  of  Christian  baptism. 


THE   PREACHING  OF   JOHN  141 

It  may  be  that  the  first  preaching  of  John  was  in  the 
desert  where  he  had  learnt  his  message,  but  probably  that 
was  not  the  case.  As  soon  as  he  became  conscious  of  his 
mission  he  would  go  out  among  men,  and  his  conception  of 
the  need  of  baptism  would  impel  him  to  the  sacred  banks  of 
Jordan  that  he  might  baptize  there.  The  scene  of  his 
ministry  was  the  Jordan  valley,-  and  the  fact  that  some 
part  of  this  valley  was  in  Judaea,  some  in  the  territory  of 
Herod  Antipas,  some  belonging  to  the  free  cities  of  the  De- 
capohs,  would  make  it  a  safe  refuge.  If  he  began  to  preach 
in  Judaea,  it  is  probable  that  later  on,  after  the  Jewish  hier- 
archy had  shown  an  excessive  and  dangerous  interest  in  his 
career,  he  crossed  over  to  the  opposite  bank,  where  he  would 
be  in  the  jurisdiction  of  Antipas. 

The  scene  of  his  activity  then  was,  as  St.  Luke  tells  us, 
the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  various  places  mentioned 
by  St.  John  —  Bethany  or  Bethabara,  and  Aenon  or  "the 
springs" — were  in  that  neighbourhood. 

Thither,  when  the  news  had  gone  forth  that  a  new  prophet 
had  arisen,  came  a  great  multitude  to  hear  him,  says 
Josephus,  and  they  heard  him  gladly.  All  Jerusalem  and 
Judaea  came,  says  St.  Mark,  and  were  baptized  in  Jordan, 
confessing  their  sins.  Thither,  too,  came  representatives 
of  the  great  men  of  the  Jews,  of  the  Sadducees  whose  evil 
lives  were  so  notorious,  of  the  Pharisees  who  had  learnt 
to  trust  in  their  own  righteousness.  They  came  to  learn 
what  he  was  like,  to  act  as  spies  on  him,  perhaps  to  de- 
nounce and  prosecute  him.  He  detected  their  insincerity,  and 
condemned  it  in  language  which  revealed  still  more  the  pur- 
port of  his  message: 

"Ye  offspring  of  vipers,  who  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
wrath  to  come?  Bring  forth,  therefore,  fruits  worthy  of 
repentance;  and  think  not  to  say  within  yourselves,  We 
have  Abraham  for  our  father;  for  I  say  unto  you,  that  God 
is  able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto  Abraham." 

Here  was  the  significant  feature  of  John's  message.  It 
had  become  almost  an  axiom  that  to  be  an  Israelite  was  all 
that    was    needed    in    the  final  judgment.      The  judgment 

^  It  was  on  the  day  that  I  was  revising  this  passage  that  we  learnt  that 
British  troops  had  occupied  the  Jordan  valley. 


142  JOHN   THE   BAPTIST 

had  come  to  be  looked  at  merely  from  the  point  of  view  of 
God's  own  people.  They  had  suffered  much  in  the  past; 
the  Gentiles  had  triumphed  over  them.  When  Messiah 
and  the  judgment  came  the  position  would  be  reversed. 
For  the  Gentiles  were  prepared  wrath  and  destruction,  for 
the  holy  nation  rest  and  peace.  They  would  rejoice  when 
they  saw  the  fate  of  their  enemies  and  persecutors.  The 
privileged  position  of  being  descended  from  Abraham  was 
all  that  was  needed  as  a  condition  of  salvation  in  the 
Messianic  days. 

But  John,  as  always,  goes  back  to  the  prophetic  message. 
He  delivers  the  same  call  to  Israel  to  repent  as  the  prophets 
had  delivered.  He  denounces,  as  they  had  done,  the  sins  of 
the  chosen  people.  No  privilege  will  avail  when  God  comes 
to  judgment.  He  demands  righteousness  from  all.  The 
Pharisee  would  baptize  the  proselyte  that  all  uncleanness 
might  be  removed.  He  is  told  that  he,  too,  is  unclean,  in 
spite  of  his  scrupulous  adherence  to  the  law.  He  must 
repent  and  change  his  Hfe  and  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for 
repentance  and  confess  his  sins  and  be  himself  baptized. 
The  Sadducee,  the  priest  who  offered  the  sacrifices  for 
Israel,  and  purified  himself  when  he  performed  his  priestly 
rites,  might  say  that  he  was  pure  and  clean.  His  ritual 
purity  was  useless.  The  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  a 
revelation  of  righteousness,  with  righteousness  would  He 
judge,  in  righteousness  must  His  people  prepare  for  Him. 
The  Baptist's  message  was  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared 
for  the  Lord. 

Nor  could  he  lay  stress  on  his  descent  from  Abraham. 
Just  as  Amos  had  threatened  destruction  to  the  sinners  of 
Israel,  just  as  Hosea  had  said,  "Ye  are  not  my  people  and  I 
will  not  be  your  God,"  so  John  announces  the  divine  wrath 
against  the  sinners  of  Israel  in  his  day.  Descent  from 
Abraham  will  count  as  nothing.  As  God  sent  His  Spirit 
into  dry  bones  and  they  became  a  great  army,  so  He  might 
of  the  stones  that  lay  around  make  children  for  Abraham. 

Justice,  mercy,  charity  are  his  message.  "What  shall  we 
do?"  said  the  people.  "He  that  hath  two  coats,  let  him 
give  to  him  that  hath  none  and  he  that  hath  food  let  him  do 
likewise."    To  the  tax-gatherers  he  said:   "Extort  no  more 


THE   MESSAGE   OF   JOHN  143 

than  is  due  to  you."  To  the  soldiers:  "Be  content  with 
your  pay,  do  not  add  to  it  by  robbery  and  violence," 

This  simple  and  sincere  message,  so  different  from  the 
religious  fantasies  of  the  day,  went  straight  to  the  heart  of 
the  people.  "All  men  counted  John  as  a  prophet."  There 
was  a  great  stir  in  the  land,  and,  as  was  natural,  the  respon- 
sible spiritual  rulers  of  the  people  desired  to  know  who  he 
claimed  to  be.  His  answer  was  clear  and  explicit.  "He 
was  not  the  Messiah."  There  had  been  much  speculation 
and  conjecture  as  to  the  preparation  for  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  and  various  messengers  who  would  precede  him, 
suggested  by  different  passages  in  Scripture,  had  been 
described.  He  refused  to  be  identified  with  any  of  these. 
Moses  had  spoken  of  the  Prophet  whom  God  would  raise 
up  like  unto  himself.^  He  was  not  that  Prophet.  Malachi 
had  foretold  how  the  Lord  would  send  Elijah  the  prophet 
before  the  great  and  terrible  day,  and  much  strange  and 
curious  legend  had  grown  up  round  his  name.-  John  would 
not  allow  that  he  was  Elijah.  He  describes  himself  with  terms 
of  depreciation  drawn  from  the  great  prophetic  book  which 
had  inspired  his  teaching  as  "  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
desert.  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord."^ 

Then,  in  clear  unmistakable  words,  he  speaks  of  the 
Messiah  that  is  to  come.  One  who  comes  after  him  will  be 
greater  than  he.  He  was  unworthy  to  perform  even  the 
most  menial  offices  for  Him.  "I  baptize  with  water,  he  will 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  He  will  sift 
the  wheat  from  the  chaff,  he  will  gather  the  wheat  into  his 
garner  and  burn  the  chaff  in  unquenchable  fire." 

The  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  revelation  of  the 
Lord  in  fire,  were  alike  characteristics  of  the  Messianic  age. 
Ezekiel,'*  immediately  after  speaking  of    the  baptism   with 

1  Deut.  xviii.  15.    On  'the  Prophet'  see  Volz,  op.  cit.,  p.  190. 

2  Mai.  iii.  2,  3/.;iv.  5/.  See  Volz,  op.  cit.,  192;    Edersheim,  Life,  ii.,  706. 
2  Jn.  i.  23.     I  have  little  doubt  but  that  the  fourth  Gospel  is  correct  in 

ascribing  these  words  to  the  Baptist  himself.     They  are  drawn  direct  from 
the  prophets,  and  would  not  have  been  used  of  him  by  others.     The  text 
others  would  use  is,  of  course,  Mai.  iii.  5,  as  is  shown  by  its  insertion  into 
the  quotation  from  Isaiah  in  Mk.  i.  i. 
*  Ezek.  xxxvi.  27. 


144  JOHN   THE   BAPTIST 

water,  had  said:  "I  will  put  my  spirit  within  you."  Zech- 
ariah^  had  said:  "I  will  pour  upon  the  house  of  David, 
and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace 
and  suppHcation."  Isaiah:  -  "I  will  pour  my  spirit  upon  thy 
seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  thine  offspring."  "I  shall  pour 
out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  said  Joel.^ 

And  the  revelation  will  be  with  fire.  "Who  may  abide 
the  day  of  his  coming?  And  who  shall  stand  when  he 
appeareth?  for  he  is  like  a  refiner's  fire."^  ''Behold,  the 
day  Cometh,  it  burneth  as  a  furnace;  and  all  the  proud, 
and  all  that  work  wickedness  shall  be  stubble;  and  the  day 
that  Cometh  shall  burn  them  up,  saith  the  Lord."^  "Be- 
hold, the  Lord  will  come  with  fire."^ 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  original  conception  of  the 
writers  of  these  passages  (most  of  them,  indeed,  were  for  them 
Messianic),  and  whoever  may  have  been  their  authors,  they 
certainly  existed  for  John  as  clear  revelations  of  the  divine 
purpose.  He  believed  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  at  hand,  and 
it  was  to  him  a  great  revelation  of  the  spirit  and  power  of 
God.  All  this  he  expresses  in  the  terse,  picturesque  language 
which  characterizes  his  recorded  utterances.  The  Spirit  of 
God  will  come  into  the  world  and  stir  men's  hearts  and  give 
them  a  new  life.  God's  fire  will  burn  in  men's  hearts;  it 
will  cleanse  them  from  all  evil  and  sin,  and  clear  away  the 
dross.^  All  the  worthless  it  will  consume  away.  The  new 
heart  which  will  be  put  into  men  will  be  free  from  all  evil, 
and  goodness  will  have  the  strength  and  power  of  fire. 
There  will  be  an  enthusiasm  and  zeal  for  all  that  is  clean  and 
bright  and  true  such  as  has  never  been  known  before.  The 
world  is  on  the  brink  of  a  new  age.  "The  world's  great  age 
begins  anew." 

^  Zech.  xii.  lo.  ^  Is.  xliv.  3.  '  Joel  ii.  28. 

*  Mai.  iii.  2.  *  Mai.  iv.  i.  *  Is.  Lxvi.  15. 

^  On  baptism  by  fire  see  Abrahams,  Studies,  pp.  44-45:  "The  idea  is 
carried  out  most  fully  in  a  saying  of  Abbahu  (end  of  third  century). 
Schottgen  has  already  cited  this  parallel  from  T.B.,  Sanhedrin,  3ga.  Ab- 
bahu explains  that  when  God  buried  Moses  He  bathed  Himself  in  fire  as 
it  is  written:  'For,  behold,  the  Lord  will  come  with  fire'  (Is.  lxvi.  15). 
Abbahu  goes  on  to  say,  'By  fire  is  the  essential  baptism,'  and  he  quotes: 
'All  that  abideth  not  the  fire  ye  shall  make  to  go  through  the  water'  (Num. 
xxxi.  23).    Thus  baptism  by  fire  is  the  divine  analogue   to  man's  baptism 


THE   MESSIANIC   AGE  145 

The  language,  although  derived  from  the  prophets,  is  in 
its  form  and  apphcation  new  and  creative.  John  had  clearly 
a  higher  conception  of  what  the  Messianic  age  meant  than 
his  contemporaries.  In  their  phraseology  and  thought 
they  are  different  from  the  manner  in  which  such  ideas  were 
expressed  afterwards  in  Christianity.  They  are  unique  as 
they  are  original.  They  were  the  genuine  utterances  of 
John,  as  they  were  a  true  delineation  of  the  real  Messianic 
age.  It  may  still  remain  a  question  whether  they  were  a 
general  picture  of  the  age  to  come,  or  whether,  as  the  fourth 
Gospel  would  suggest,  they  were  directly  applied  to  Jesus. 
The  fact  that  they  are  preserved  for  us  in  a  general  form  is  no 
argument  against  their  having  a  special  application,  as  the 
Christian  Church  could  never  have  considered  that  they  were 
spoken  with  any  other  reference  than  that  to  Jesus,  and 
the  definite  attribution  of  them  as  a  prophecy  of  His  coming 
in  the  fourth  Gospel  would  be  the  interpretation  which  every 
Christian  of  the  early  Church  would  assume  to  be  correct. 
But  whether  they  were  actually  spoken  after  John  had  seen 
and  known  Jesus,  or  whether  they  had  no  reference  to  Him 
as  originally  spoken,  must  remain  a  question  which  does  not 
admit  of  an  easy  solution. 

n 

Amongst  those  who  came  to  John  to  be  baptized  was 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  in  Galilee.  There  seems  no  reason  for 
thinking  that  previous  to  this  He  had  been  a  religious 
teacher.  The  Gospel  narratives  all  imply  that  it  was  after 
His  baptism  that  His  preaching  began.  He  was  known  only 
as  the  carpenter,  the  son  of  Mary.  Equally  is  it  certain  that 
He,  like  John,  had  met  the  religious  questions  of  the  day 
by  an  earnest  and,  as  we  have  already  learnt,  a  simple  and 
spiritual  study  of  the  Scriptures;  that  men  would  have 
said  of  Him  that  He  was  stirred  deeply  by  the  things 
of  religion;  and  that  the  news  that  a  prophet  had  arisen 
in  Israel  would  profoundly  affect  His  thoughts  and  aspirations. 

by  water.  Man  could  not  bear  the  more  searching  test."  These  Rabbinical 
parallels  are  interesting  as  showing  that  such  ideas  (as  they  were  drawn 
from  the  Old  Testament)  were  natural  to  Judaism,  but  they  throw  no  light 
on  the  origin  of  John's  teaching,  which  was  drawn  directly  from  the  Old 
Testament. 


146  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

When  jesus  came  to  be  baptized  we  are  told  in  one 
account  how  John  prevented  Him  with  the  words,  "I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me?"  The 
answer  that  Jesus  gave  was,  "Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus 
it  is  fitting  for  us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  He  was 
baptized,  and  as  He  came  out  of  the  water  He  saw  the 
heavens  opened,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  coming  down  on  Him 
as  a  dove,  and  a  voice  from  heaven  saying:  "Thou  art  my 
son,  my  beloved,  in  thee  I  am  well  pleased." 

Such  is  the  narrative.  But  the  imagination  must  be 
allowed  to  picture  what  lay  behind  it.  We  need  not  think 
of  John's  baptism  as  impersonal  and  indiscriminate.  Those 
who  flocked  from  all  sides  to  hear  him  would  listen  to  his 
preaching,  careless  of  any  material  comfort,  living  easily, 
as  would  always  be  possible  in  the  warm  Jordan  valley,  in 
the  open  air,  eating  the  scanty  food  they  had  brought  with 
them.  They  would  be,  for  a  time  at  any  rate,  his  disciples, 
sitting  at  his  feet.  They  would  learn  from  him  and  reveal 
themselves  to  him.  Not  all  would  wish  to  be  baptized,  not 
all  would  be  admitted  to  baptism.  Those  who  were  bap- 
tized, we  are  specially  told,  would  confess  their  sins.  The 
master  would  reveal  to  the  disciple  and  the  disciple  to  the 
master  his  deepest  thought.  We  learn  from  the  fourth  Gos- 
pel that  John  did  not  know  Jesus  until  He  came  to  him, 
a  statement  which  may  have  been  inserted  because  of  the 
story  of  a  relationship  given  by  St.  Luke.  But  Jesus  could 
not  come  to  be  baptized  without  intercourse  between  the 
two.  If  Jesus  heard  the  message  of  John,  John  would  learn 
from  Jesus  His  deepest  visions.^ 

John  had  spoken  of  himself  as  the  voice  of  one  crying  in 
the  wilderness.     Jesus,  as  soon  as  He  begins  His  preaching, 

1  On  this  compare  Abbott,  Fourfold  Gospel,  Section  ii.,  The  Beginning, 
p.  96:  "Jesus  arrived  (we  may  reasonably  infer  from  the  context)  not 
alone,  but  with  other  postulants  for  baptism.  These  postulants  the  prophet 
must  have  tested  in  some  way  before  baptizing  them.  To  test  such  a  mul- 
titude —  some  of  whom  he  rejected  as  being  '  offspring  qf  vipers '  —  must 
have  taken  time.  For  a  time,  then,  Jesus  may  have  been  a  disciple  of  John 
either  in  one  and  the  same  place,  or  'following  behind  him'  from  place  to 
place  in  the  circle  of  the  Jordan.  True,  Matthew  tells  us  that  John  said  to 
Jesus,  'I  have  need  to  be  baptized  of  Thee';  but  Matthew  gives  us  no 
grounds  for  supposing  that  John  said  this  to  Jesus  in  view  of  any  previous 
acquaintance  or  connection  between  them." 


JESUS   IS   BAPTIZED  147 

identifies  Himself  with  the  servant  of  the  Lord.'^  From  the 
Old  Testament  as  a  whole,  and  the  book  of  Isaiah  in  par- 
ticular, both  alike  had  drawn  their  inspiration,  and  John 
would  learn  from  his  intercourse  with  Jesus  that  while  to 
him  had  come  the  conviction  that  his  mission  was  to  prepare 
the  way,  Jesus  knew  that  He  was  God's  servant  in  a  sense 
different  to  any  other.  And  when  at  the  baptism  John 
learnt  that  Jesus  had  received  the  full  consciousness  of  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit,  he  would  feel  that  He  it  was  who  should 
baptize  with  the  Spirit  and  with  fire,  as  he  had  foretold, 
while  it  was  natural  that  Jesus  should  feel  as  God's  servant 
that  the  whole  scheme  of  divine  and  human  righteousness 
must  be  fulfilled  by  Him.  John  must  have  known  enough 
to  feel  that  he  should  desire  that  Jesus  should  bestow  on 
him  the  fuller  baptism  of  the  Spirit  which  he  expected,  and 
to  hesitate  to  baptize  Him.  The  story  as  it  is  told  is  quite 
probable.^ 

As  Jesus  came  forth  out  of  the  water  He  saw  the  heavens 
opened,  as  Ezekiel  had  seen  in  his  vision,  and  He  saw  the 
Spirit  come  down  upon  Him  as  a  dove  from  heaven,  and  He 
heard  the  voice  saying  to  Him,  *'Thou  art  my  son,  my 
beloved,  in  thee  am  I  well  pleased." 

The  account  in  St.  Mark  represents  this  vision  as  having 
been  seen  by  Jesus  only,  and  is  probably  correct;  it  may  be 
doubted,  also,  whether  John  had  any  direct  consciousness 

»  Lk.  iv.  17/. 

2  Compare  Abbott,  Fourfold  Gospels,  ibid.,  p.  91.  "By  the  laws  of  evi- 
dence —  laws  which  men  who  know  them  are  bound  morally  as  well  as 
logically  to  observe  —  we  are  not  justified  in  accepting  either  the  Matthaean 
or  the  Johannine  tradition  in  its  exact  words,  as  having  an  authority  equal 
to  that  of  a  saying  of  Christ  supported  by  the  threefold  Synoptic  testimony. 
But  we  are  justified  in  accepting  both  as  being  neither  inventions  nor  gross 
and  absurd  exaggerations,  nor  mere  anachronisms,  but  honest  and  reason- 
able attempts  to  hand  down,  in  a  reasonable  though  somewhat  idealized 
form,  the  Christian  traditions,  accepted  at  the  time,  about  the  attitude  of 
John  the  Baptist  towards  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  From  a  spiritual  point  of 
view,  these  early  Christian  traditions  may  well  be  regarded,  even  by  the 
keenest  and  most  ardent  lovers  of  scientific  and  historical  research,  as  being 
no  overstatement,  but  perhaps  an  understatement  of  the  truth."  I  should 
not  be  inclined  to  consider  that  a  statement  repeated  in  three  Gospels  is 
of  greater  value  than  that  contained  in  one,  but  the  importance  of  these 
words  is  that  it  reminds  us  that  what  lies  behind  an  imperfect  narrative  is 
something  more  wonderful  than  it  gives,  not  less  so. 

II 


148  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

of  it  apart  from  what  he  learned  from  Jesus.  The  imagery 
employed  suggests  that  the  voice  of  God  spoke  as  it  had 
spoken  to  Samuel,  and  the  symbol  of  a  dove,  suggested 
perhaps  by  the  opening  words  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  was 
natural  in  itself  and  in  accordance  with  Jewish  conceptions.^ 
The  account  of  the  vision  or,  as  we  should  say  in  more 
modern  language,  spiritual  experience,  was  probably  derived 
direct  from  our  Lord,  and  He  described  His  experience,  just 
as  He  did  His  experience  in  the  Temptation,  in  a  symbolism 
natural  to  the  religious  instincts  of  the  day.  There  seems 
no  reason  for  demanding  a  too  literal  interpretation  of  the 
words.  To  insist  that  there  was  a  clear  and  audible  voice 
heard  by  all  round,  and  a  real  and  physical  dove,  is  to 
translate  the  language  of  poetry  into  prose.  The  spiritual 
experience  was  real,  as  real  and  profound  as  any  such 
experience  has  been  since  the  world  began,  but  it  is  described, 
as  all  such  experiences  must  be,  in  a  natural  symbolical 
language  with  phrases  and  with  imagery  suited  to  the  time.^ 

^  Abrahams,  Studies,  v.,  pp.  47-50,  gives  full  reference  to  this  symbol- 
ism in  Rabbinic  literature.  "It  is  quite  in  keeping  with  this  whole  range  of 
ideas  to  find  the  Targum  (Cant.  ii.  12)  interpreting  as  the  'voice  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  Salvation'  the  text,  the  'voice  of  the  turtle-dove  is  heard  in  our 
land.'  In  particular,  these  ideas  come  into  the  interpretation  of  Gen.  i.  2. 
'The  spirit  of  God  was  brooding  on  the  face  of  the  waters  like  a  dove 
which  broods  over  her  young,  but  does  not  touch  them'"  (Cf.  Talmud, 
Hagiga,  15a,  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  ed.  2,  vol.  i.,  p.  423).  Compare 
also  B.  T.  Barakhoth,  fol.  3a:  "I  heard  a  Bath-Qol  moaning  as  a  dove, 
and  saying:  Woe  to  the  children  through  whose  iniquities  I  laid  waste 
My  Temple." 

2  This  is  emphasized  very  strongly  by  Origen.  In  a  fragment  (No.  20) 
on  St.  John's  Gospel  (Brooke,  The  Commentary  of  Origen  on  St.  John,  i., 
p.  237)  he  argues:  We  must  enquire  how  the  Holy  Spirit  was  seen  by  John. 
There  are  two  ways  of  seeing,  with  the  senses  and  with  the  understanding 
{its  T€  Trjv  a'iad-qaiv  /cat  r-qv  voriuiv).  The  visions  of  prophets  and  holy  men 
have  always  been  seen  with  the  understanding,  and  not  the  senses,  for 
things  which  have  no  bodily  form  we  can  only  see  symbolically  (5i'  o.va\6yov 
Tivos).  The  Holy  Spirit  has  no  bodily  form,  and  therefore  is  represented 
by  the  idea  of  a  dove  (ojs  Trepicrrepas  v6ri<TLv  dextTcn).  That  the  concep- 
tion was  thus  symbolical  is  proved  by  the  use  of  the  phrase  'coming  down' 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  affected  by  motion,  which  means  change  of 
place  (nera^aTLKus  ov  KLvovfikvov) ;  by  the  expression  'remaining'  —  no  one 
could  see  the  Holy  Spirit  'remaining';  by  the  statement  that  'the  heavens 
were  opened,'  which  is  a  physical  impossibility.  And  he  ends,  "All  these 
things,  then,  I  mean  the  coming  down  from  heaven  of  the  Holy  Spirit 


THE  SYMBOLISM  OF  THE  BAPTISM       149 

There  is  an  early  and  interesting  variation  in  the  text 
of  St.  Luke's  Gospel.  A  series  of  patristic  authorities, 
starting  from  Justin,  and  deriving  their  information  in  all 
probabihty  from  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  have  substi- 
tuted for  the  words  of  the  message  a  quotation  from  the 
Psalms:  "Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."^ 
That  this  was  not  original  may  be  considered  quite  certain. 
It  arose  partly  from  dogmatic  causes,  partly  from  the  pas- 
sage in  the  Psalms.  The  correctness  of  the  ordinary  text  is 
substantiated  on  internal  grounds.     It  combines  the  sonship 

upon  Jesus  and  its  remaining  on  Him,  were  written  for  edification 
ioiKovo/jnas  'iviKiv  yeypairTai.),  and  do  not  contain  an  historical  narrative 
(ovx  iffTopmriv  8i,rjyr]<7Lv  exovra),  but  a  vision  of  the  understanding,  as  has  been 
already  said."  A  similar  argument  is  used  in  Contra  Celsum,  i.,  48:  "For 
I  do  not  suppose  that  the  visible  heaven  was  actually  opened  and  its  physi- 
cal structure  divided  in  order  that  Ezekiel  should  be  able  to  record  such 
an  occurrence.  Should  not,  therefore,  the  same  be  believed  of  the  Saviour 
by  every  intelligent  hearer  of  the  Gospel?  Although  such  an  occurrence 
may  be  a  stumbling-block  to  the  simple,  who,  in  their  simplicity,  would 
set  the  whole  world  in  movement,  and  split  in  sunder  the  compact  and 
mighty  body  of  the  whole  heavens.  .  .  ."  He  describes  it  more  as  a  matter 
known  by  a  kind  of  divine  perception  than  perceived  b}^  the  senses,  and  in 
this  way  particularly  explains  Jn.  i.  32-34. 

'  There  is  some  textual  and  considerable  patristic  evidence  for  the  read- 
ing, "Thou  art  my  son,  this  day  hav^e  I  begotten  thee"  {kyu  aiinepov  ytykvvrjKo. 
at).  The  earliest  evidence  for  it  is  probably  that  in  the  Gospel  of  the 
Ebionites:  "When  the  people  had  been  baptized,  Jesus  also  came  and  was 
baptized  by  John.  And  when  He  came  up  from  the  water,  the  heav^ens  were 
opened,  and  He  saw  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  form  of  a  dove  descending  and 
coming  upon  Him.  And  a  voice  came  from  heaven  saying,  'Thou  art  My 
beloved  Son,  in  Thee  I  am  well  pleased.'  And  again,  'This  day  have  I  be- 
gotten Thee.'  And  immediately  a  great  light  shone  around  about  the  place. 
And  again  a  voice  from  heaven  to  Him,  'This  is  My  beloved  Son,  in  whom 
I  am  well  pleased.'  And  then  John,  falling  down  before  Him,  said,  'I  be- 
seech Thee,  Lord,  do  Thou  baptize  me.'  But  He  prevented  him,  saying, 
'Suffer  it  to  be  so,  for  thus  it  is  fitting  that  all  things  be  fulfilled.'"  But 
the  narrative  of  the  baptism  is  given  with  these  words  in  Justin  Martyr, 
Dial.,  88,  103;  Clement  Alex.,  Paed.,  i.,  6,  25;  Acta  Petri  et  Paull,  c.  29; 
Methodius,  Lactantius,  Juvencus,  and  Const.  A  post.  St.  Augustine  (De 
consensu  ev.,  ii.,  xiv.,  31)  states  that  these  words  are  not  found  in  the  oldest 
Greek  MSS.  This  reading  is  found,  however,  in  D.,  and  certain  old  Latin 
MSS.  in  St.  Luke.  There  is  no  doubt  that  this  reading  was  widely  dis- 
tributed at  an  early  date,  but  both  external  and  internal  evidence  is  against 
its  genuineness.  It  arose  through  the  influence  of  the  verse  in  the  Psalms 
(ii.  7),  from  which  it  is  quoted,  and  was  adopted  for  dogmatic  reasons  by 


I50  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

of  the  Psalms  with  the  divine  servant  of  Isaiah.  "The  Lord 
said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  son."  "Behold  my  servant, 
whom  I  uphold;  my  beloved  in  whom  my  soul  dehghteth. 
I  have  put  my  spirit  upon  him."^  If  our  analysis  of  the 
thoughts  of  Jesus  is  correct,  it  corresponds  exactly  with 
what  was  in  His  mind  when  He  went  forth  on  His  mission. 
The  conception  of  the  divine  son  and  the  divine  servant  had 
formed  the  centre  of  His  thoughts,  the  great  lesson  He  had 
learned  from  Scripture.  The  experience  of  His  baptism 
confirmed  and  strengthened  the  sense  of  His  mission. 

The  baptism  of  Jesus  was  very  early  a  subject  of  specula- 
tion. To  all  those  who  were  frightened  at  the  reality  of 
our  Lord's  human  nature  it  seemed  to  provide  a  means  of 
escape  from  their  difhculties.  They  fancied  that  the  divine 
sonship  had  at  this  time  come  down  and  taken  up  its  abode 
in  Jesus;  His  being  now  hailed  as  son  was  a  sign  that  the 
sonship  had  at  this  moment  come;  and  the  alteration  in  the 
words  addressed  to  Him  arose  from  this  theory .^  But  on  the 
other  side  there  were  difficulties  felt  which  have  left  their 
mark  on  early  apocryphal  narratives.^     Why  should  it  be 

those  like  the  Ebionites  who  denied  the  virgin  birth,  and  those  like  the 
Gnostic  sects  who,  holding  docetic  views,  believed  that  the  Christ  entered 
into  the  man  Jesus  at  the  baptism.  The  words  might,  of  course,  be  inter- 
preted in  an  orthodox  way,  and  were  so  taken,  but  there  is  no  reason  for 
thinking  them  original. 

1  Is.  xlii.  i:  "Behold  my  servant,  whom  I  uphold;  my  chosen  (or  be- 
loved) in  whom  my  soul  delighteth."  The  quotation  does  not  come  from 
the  LXX. 

^  Such,  for  example,  was  the  teaching  of  Cerinthus  (Iren.,  i.,  21,  ed.  Har- 
vey): Jesus  was  not  bom  from  a  virgin,  but  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  just  like  other  men,  but  with  greater  righteousness,  prudence,  and 
wisdom.  After  His  baptism  the  Christ  descended  on  Him  from  that  region 
which  is  above  all  in  the  form  of  a  dove,  and  announced  to  Him  the  un- 
known Father;  and  at  the  end  the  Christ  left  Jesus,  and  Jesus  suffered 
and  rose  again. 

'  The'  Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes  gives  the  following  story  (Hieronymus 
adv.  Pelagianos  iii.,  2,  0pp.,  ii.,  782;  Hilgenfeld,  Novum  Testanientum  extra 
canonem  receptum,  iv.,  15):  Behold,  the  mother  of  the  Lord  and  His  breth- 
ren said  to  Him:  John  Baptist  baptizes  to  the  remission  of  sins;  let 
us  go  and  be  baptized  by  him.  He  said  to  them:  How  have  I  sinned  that 
I  should  go  and  be  baptized  by  him?  Unless,  perchance,  this  very  thing 
that  I  have  said  is  ignorance.  Jesus  was  compelled  by  his  mother,  Mary, 
almost  unwillingly  to  receive  the  baptism  of  John  (De  Rebapiismate,   17). 


THE   MEANING   OF   THE   BAPTISM  151 

necessary  that  He,  the  Son  of  God,  who  had  done  no  sin, 
should  be  baptized,  as  other  men  who  were  sinners?  Why- 
should  He  prepare  for  the  day  of  His  own  coming?  If  He 
were  the  Son  of  God,  surely  all  this  was  derogatory  to  Him. 
It  may  be  for  these  reasons  that  the  objections  of  the 
Baptist  were  conceived,  and  later  times  put  into  his  mouth 
the  questions  that  they  would  have  liked  to  ask  themselves, 
but,  as  has  been  pointed  out,  the  words  might  be  entirely 
natural  in  the  position  in  which  they  are  recorded,  and  they 
have  a  uniqueness  of  expression  which  does  not  suggest  a 
later  date.  If  the  Baptist  knew  the  mind  of  Jesus  —  and 
why  should  he  not  have  learnt  it?  —  he  would  feel  that  it 
was  more  fitting  that  He  should  receive  that  baptism 
with  the  Spirit  which  he  had  foretold.  And  the  answer  of 
Jesus,  adapting  Himself  to  a  complete  human  experience, 
harmonizes  with  all  that  we  know  of  the  thoughts  of  His 
life. 

The  narratives  of  the  Gospels  make  it  quite  clear  that  His 
baptism  was  for  Jesus  a  great  spiritual  crisis,  that  in  such  a 
way  as  never  before  He  was  conscious  of  His  divine  power 
and  mission,  that  He  felt,  as  not  previously,  that  he  was 
the  Son  of  God,  the  servant  summoned  for  God's  work. 
The  Baptism  means  the  Temptation,  and  the  beginning 
of  His  ministry.  He  knew  for  what  He  was  called.  There 
has  been  and  is  much  discussion  on  the  self-consciousness  of 
Jesus.  That  is  one  of  those  subjects  which  must  in  any  case 
remain  beyond  our  comprehension  and  experience.  We 
cannot  analyze  the  manner  in  which  the  divine  conscious- 
ness was  united  to  the  human.  We  have  no  experience  or 
analogy  to  guide  us.  All  that  is  possible  for  us  is  to  narrate 
faithfully  the  account  that  comes  to  us  —  directly  or  indi- 

This  is  the  account  of  the  baptism  in  the  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews 
(Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes),  Hilgenfeld,  loc.  ciL  {De  Rebaptismate,  loc.  cit.); 
Hieronymus  ad  les.,  xi.,  i  {0pp.,  iv.,  156):  "When  Jesus  was  baptized,  fire 
was  seen  on  the  water.  But  it  came  to  pass  when  the  Lord  had  ascended 
from  the  water  there  descended  the  whole  fountain  of  the  Holy  Spirit  (fons 
omnis  spiritus  sancti)  and  rested  upon  Him  and  said  to  Him:  'My  Son,  in 
all  the  prophets  I  was  expecting  Thee,  that  Thou  shouldst  come,  and  I  should 
rest  in  Thee.  For  Thou  art  my  rest,  Thou  art  my  first-begotten  Son,  who 
reignest  for  ever.'"  That  these  are  later  reconstructions,  and  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  must  be  apparent  to  any  reader. 


152  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

rectly  from  His  own  lips  —  of  Himself,  and  build  up  our  con- 
ception as  we  proceed.  This  is  certain,  that  the  baptism 
is  represented  as  a  unique  crisis  in  the  life  of  Jesus,  and 
henceforth  He  knows  His  mission. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  fourth  Gospel  does  not 
give  any  account  of  the  baptism,  but  only  refers  to  it,  and 
that  in  it  the  baptism  of  John  (who  is  never  called  the 
Baptist)  is  entirely  subordinated  to  his  witness.  The 
allusive  manner  in  which  the  actual  baptism  is  referred  to 
is  entirely  in  accordance  with  the  method  of  the  Gospel, 
which  does  not  trouble  to  narrate  what  is  known  and 
emphasizes  what  has  been  in  the  opinion  of  the  author 
passed  over  and  misunderstood;  but  the  question  is  raised: 
Is  St.  John  correct  in  suggesting  a  very  much  closer  union 
between  Jesus  and  John  than  is  described  in  the  other 
Gospels,  and  in  particular  in  asserting  that  John  definitely 
bore  witness  to  the  mission  of  Jesus? 

Most  definitely  is  the  very  remarkable  testimony  con- 
tained in  the  words,  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  questioned.  It  is  held  to 
be  an  anachronism,  and  to  represent  the  manner  in  which  the 
fourth  Gospel  reads  into  an  earlier  period  the  language  of  a 
later  time.  It  is  possible  that  some  reflection  may  make  us 
hesitate  to  accept  that  criticism.  It  has  been  suggested 
more  than  once  already  that  the  language,  the  thoughts  and 
ideas  of  John,  as  of  Jesus,  are  derived  from  a  fresh  and 
intimate  study  of  the  prophets,  and  that  Jesus  from  the 
beginning  of  His  ministry  thought  of  Himself  as  the  servant 
of  the  Lord  and  applied  to  Himself  these  passages.  But  in 
the  imagery  of  the  prophet  the  figure  of  the  lamb  had  been 
used  of  the  servant.^  On  the  servant  was  laid  the  iniquity 
of  us  all,  and  he  bare  the  sins  of  many.  There  is  nothing 
in  the  words  put  into  the  Baptist's  mouth  which  he  might 
not  have  learnt  from  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  applied  to 
Him  Who  already  felt  Himself  to  be  "the  Servant"  with  all 
that  it  implied.  It  is  remarkable  also  that  this  conception 
of  the  "Lamb  of  God"  is  not  as  universal  or  as  constant  as 
we  expect.    It  occurs  but  little  outside  the  Apocalypse,  and 

1  Is.  liii.  7,  II,  12. 


JESUS  AS  THE  DISCIPLE  OF  JOHN  153 

it  is  as  likely  that  the  language  of  the  Baptist  represented 
the  origin  of  the  image  as  that  it  was  derived  from  later 
thought. 

There  is  a  definite  tradition  of  close  intercourse  between 
John  and  Jesus.  Jesus  knows  at  once  of  the  death  of 
John.  He  speaks  of  him  often.  He  praises  him  highly. 
It  is  not  probable  that  the  Gospel  narrative  would  have 
begun  with  the  baptism  of  John  if  he  had  not  been  associ- 
ated most  intimately  with  the  work  of  Jesus.  Why,  too, 
should  we  be  told  in  St.  Mark  that  it  was  after  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  that  Jesus  went  from  Judaea  into  Galilee? 
Again,  according  to  the  fourth  Gospel,  some  of  our  Lord's 
disciples  had  previously  been  disciples  of  John,  and  this 
seems  corroborated  by  other  traditions.  The  quaUfications  of 
an  apostle,  as  stated  at  the  time  of  the  election  of  Matthias, 
were  that  he  was  a  witness  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  beginning 
with  the  baptism  of  John.  These  words,  if  pressed,  would 
mean  that  all  the  apostles  had  been  at  any  rate  hearers  of 
John.  It  may  be  taken  certainly  to  imply  that  the  work  of 
the  two  was  looked  upon  as  continuous,  and  that  some  at 
least  of  our  Lord's  disciples  had  been  hearers  of  the  Baptist. 

For  a  time,  the  length  of  which  we  are  unable  to  estimate, 
Jesus,  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  was  a  disciple  of  John.  He 
collected  disciples  round  Him,  and  His  activities  for  the  most 
part  were  placed  in  the  Jordan  valley  and  perhaps  else- 
where in  Judaea.  It  was  natural  that  such  a  position  might 
seem  to  imply  rivalry,  and  some  rivalry  grew  up  among 
John's  disciples,  who  were  jealous  for  their  master  and  un- 
able to  appreciate  his  profounder  insight.  There  was  a  dis- 
cussion, we  are  told,  between  John's  disciples  and  a  Jew 
about  purifying.  Presumably  they  held  that  their  master's 
washing,  once  performed,  was  sufficient,  and  that  there  was 
no  need  for  the  elaborate  purifications  of  the  law.  This  led 
to  an  altercation,  and,  as  a  result,  the  disciples  of  St.  John 
were  told  that  their  cause  was  a  failing  one,  and  that  it  was 
Jesus  who  was  now  making  disciples.  "He  that  was  with 
thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  hast  borne  witness, 
behold  the  same  baptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  him."  The 
answer  of  the  Baptist  is  in  style  and  matter  alike  charac- 
teristic.   It  is  given  with  the  richness  of  figurative  language 


154  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

which  he  had  learnt  from  the  prophets;  it  reveals  the  great- 
ness of  his  spiritual  character,  **He  that  hath  the  bride 
is  the  bridegroom;  but  the  friend  of  the  bridegroom  who 
standeth  and  heareth  him  rejoiceth  greatly  because  of  the 
bridegroom's  voice:  this  my  joy  therefore  is  fulfilled.  He 
must  increase,  but  I  must  decrease."  Isaiah  had  spoken 
of  the  joy  of  her  sons  in  Jerusalem  as  the  joy  of  the  bride- 
groom over  the  bride.^  In  a  similar  strain  John  pictures 
himself  as  the  friend  rejoicing  in  the  presence  of  the  bride- 
groom. He  exhibited  no  petty  jealousy,  as  was  expected, 
but  saw  in  Jesus  the  fulfilment  of  all  his  visions.^ 

One  more  note  of  this  time  is  given  on  which  it  is  worth 
pausing,  although  it  may  not  be  quite  possible  to  estimate 
its  significance.  Jesus  Himself  did  not  baptize,  but  His 
disciples  did.  Thus  He  refused  to  be  considered  a  rival 
and  retired  with  His  disciples  into  Galilee. 

Our  information  is  too  slight,  and  the  chronological 
arrangement  of  our  material  is  too  uncertain  to  enable  us  to 
estimate  the  real  character  of  this  early  period  of  ministry. 
It  seems  to  represent  a  time  when  Jesus  worked  in  harmony 
with  or  even  in  subservience  to  John.  And  only  gradually 
did  His  deeper  spiritual  message  become  clear.  His  teaching 
would  be  much  Hke  that  of  John.  The  full  character  of  His 
mission  was  not  revealed.  Yet  many  would  look  back  on 
these  early  days  in  the  Jordan  valley  as  a  period  of  hope  and 
expectation.  They  felt  that  more  was  to  come.  They  were 
eager  and  excited.  The  note  of  sorrow  had  not  yet  been 
heard  .^ 

^  Is.  Ixii.  5. 

2  It  must  be  noticed  that  the  passage  (Jn.  iii.  31-36)  clearly  does  not 
come  from  the  Baptist,  but  contains  the  Evangelist's  own  comment  on  the 
incident  that  we  have  just  quoted.  While  the  preceding  words  are  such  as 
the  Baptist  might  have  used,  and  harmonize  with  his  style,  the  verses  that 
follow  are  as  clearly  in  the  style,  and  express  the  theology,  of  the  Evan- 
gelist. A  similar  judgment  must  be  passed  on  vv.  16-21  of  the  same  chap- 
ter. These  instances  show  us  that  the  Evangelist  is  in  the  habit  of  passing 
from  the  words  or  incidents  he  records  to  his  own  comment  without  not- 
ing the  transition,  and  that  consideration  must  be  our  guide  in  studying 
the  Gospel. 

'  I  do  not  feel  able  to  see  my  way  clearly  through  the  stories  at  the  be- 
ginning of  St.  John's  Gospel.  It  is  quite  possible  to  hold  that  that  Gospel 
contains  much  good  tradition  without  considering  its    chronological   order 


RESENTMENT  AGAINST  JOHN  155 

III 

For  how  long  John  preached  we  have  no  knowledge. 
Some  would  extend  his  ministry  over  several  years,  others 
would  confine  it  within  very  narrow  Hmits.  On  that  point 
we  must  be  content  to  remain  ignorant.  It  must  be  re- 
marked, however,  that  popular  rehgious  movements  develop 
very  rapidly  in  the  East,  and  that  it  was  not  a  characteristic 
of  members  of  the  Herodian  family  to  allow  any  movement 
likely  to  be  injurious  to  their  authority  to  become  formidable 
if  it  could  be  checked  in  time.  It  is  probable  that  the  atti- 
tude of  the  authorities  in  Jerusalem  had  been  for  some  time 
threatening,  and  that  John  had  tended  more  and  more  to 
find  refuge  in  the  territory  of  Herod  Antipas.  The  latter 
had  pleasure,  we  are  told,  in  listening  to  John.^  He  would 
be  anxious  to  be  popular  with  the  people  and  might  even 
have  wished  to  constitute  himself  a  sort  of  patron  of  the 
prophet.  But  any  possibihty  of  this  was  taken  away  by  the 
course  of  events.  The  adulterous  and  incestuous  connection 
between  Antipas  and  Herodias  became  known  and  John 
was  stern  in  his  condemnation.  As  Elijah  had  stood  up  to 
Ahab  and  Jezebel,  so  he  stood  up  before  kings  and  was  not 
ashamed.  He  was  the  prophet  of  righteousness,  and  his 
message  was  as  much  for  kings  as  for  people.  "It  is  not 
lawful  for  thee  to  have  her." 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  fury  and  resentment  of 
Herodias  was  directed  against  him,  and  that  Herod  also 
became  his  enemy.  Josephus  gives  as  a  cause  of  the  event 
that  followed  that  he  feared  the  influence  that  John  exer- 
cised over  the  people.^  No  doubt  this  was  true,  and  there  is 
nothing  in  this  inconsistent  with  the  more  special  reason  for 
action  which  the  EvangeHsts  give.     When  Herodias'  anger 

in  all  cases  correct.  It  was  natural  that  the  discourse  of  Nicodemus,  whether 
historical  or  not,  should  be  put  in  close  connection  with  the  baptism  on 
which  it  is  a  comment.  It  is  possible  also  to  believe  that  the  Gospel  pre- 
serves the  tradition  of  St.  John,  and  even  was  written  by  him,  without 
considering  that  his  memory  was  always  accurate,  or  that  he  always  told 
the  story  in  chronological  order.  I  hesitate,  for  example,  to  accept  the 
Johannine  date  for  the  Cleansing  of  the  Temple. 

1  Mk.  vi.  20. 

^  Josephus,  AntL,  xviii.  §  ii8. 


156  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

was  aroused  it  would  transform  Herod's  hesitating  fears  into 
action.  He  therefore  arrested  him.  He  did  not  wish  to 
put  him  to  death,  but  confined  him  in  the  fortress  of 
Machaerus,  situated  among  the  mountains  in  the  southern 
confines  of  his  kingdom. 

The  result  of  this  would,  of  course,  be  to  break  up  and 
disperse  the  whole  body  of  John's  disciples,  except  some  who 
attended  their  master,  and  to  put  an  end  to  the  movement. 
Jesus  returned  to  Gahlee^  and  His  disciples  to  their  own 
homes.  But  although  the  movement  apparently  came  to 
an  end  the  arrest  of  the  Baptist  was,  as  is  so  often  in  such 
circumstances  the  case,  the  cause  or  the  occasion  of  its  real 
end  being  fulfilled.  So  far  Jesus  had  taught,  in  appearance 
at  any  rate,  under  the  shadow  of  the  Baptist.  Henceforth 
He  assumes  His  own  ofhce  and  ministry.  The  direct  result 
of  the  imprisonment  of  the  Baptist  is  the  Galilaean  ministry. 

One  more  incident  is  narrated  of  John's  Hfe.  While  he 
was  in  prison  he  heard  of  the  work  that  Jesus  did,  and  in 
a  spirit  of  hope,  of  uncertainty,  of  expectation,  perhaps  of 
some  disappointment,  he  sent  disciples  to  ask  Him  directly 
whether  He  was  the  Christ.  "Art  thou  he  that  should  come, 
or  look  we  for  another? "^  Jesus'  answer  is  significant. 
In  the  first  place,  we  shall  notice  that  it  is  expressed  in 
language  which  would  be  full  of  meaning  to  John,  which 
would  remind  him  alike  of  his  own  mission  and  of  that 
insight  that  he  had  had  into  the  mind  of  Jesus.  It  has 
been  pointed  out  how  much  of  the  recorded  sayings  and 
teaching  of  the  Baptist  has  been  drawn  from  the  language 
of   the  prophets,   and   especially  from   the   great  prophecy 

^  Mc.  i.  14.  It  must  be  emphasized  that  the  reason  given  for  Jesus' 
departure  to  Galilee  and  beginning  to  preach  on  his  own  behalf  —  the  fact 
that  John  had  been  cast  into  prison  —  is  evidence  for  the  connection  of 
Jesus  with  John  previously.  It  seems  to  support  the  Johannine  account  of 
a  period  of  discipleship. 

2  There  is  apparently  no  parallel  in  contemporary  Jewish  literature  for 
the  phrase,  "he  that  should  come,"  or  "the  coming  one"  —  6  epxcfxevos.  It 
is,  then,  a  term  created  by  John,  and,  as  usual,  out  of  Old  Testament  ex- 
pressions. That  the  day  "cometh,"  or  the  Lord  "cometh,"  is  almost  a  tech- 
nical phrase,  and  the  transition  to  "he  that  cometh"  is  easy.  So,  Is.  xl. 
ID,  Behold  the  Lord  God  cometh  as  a  mighty  one  —  i8ov  Kvpios  Kvpios  nera 
iaxvos  fpx^Tai, 


THE   IMPRISONMENT  OF  JOHN  157 

which  concludes  the  book  of  Isaiah.  This  Jesus  now  uses. 
He  appeals  to  his  works:  "Go  and  tell  John  what  you 
have  seen  and  heard.  The  works  of  the-  servant  of  the 
Lord  have  been  accomphshed.  To  the  poor  the  Gospel  is 
preached,  the  dead  are  raised,  the  bHnd  receive  their  sight, 
the  lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,"  and 
he  adds  words  which  have  been  taken  as  a  rebuke,  but 
may  be  a  commendation:  "Blessed  is  he  whosoever  is  not 
offended  in  me."^ 

Much  difhculty  has  been  found  with  this  event  as  in- 
consistent with  the  testimony  that  the  Baptist  had  already 
given.  It  may  be  suggested  rather  that  it  entirely 
harmonizes  with  it.  Had,  indeed,  the  Baptist  had  what 
some  people  would  have  us  believe,  a  direct  message  in- 
forming him  that  the  Christ  had  come  —  a  theory  neither 
demanded  by  the  narrative,  nor  consistent  with  anything 
that  we  know  of  the  methods  of  Divine  revelation  —  it 
would  be  so.  But  if  God's  Spirit,  working  through  his  natural 
powers,  had  taught  him  through  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures of  the  coming  and  the  character  of  the  Christ,  if  he 
had  seen  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  whom  he  baptized,  that 
spiritual  power  which  made  him  feel  that  here  was  "the 
coming  one,"  whom  he  greeted  as  "the  Lamb  of  God," 
it  was  natural,  when  the  ministry  of  Galilee  began,  that 
his  hopes  would  be  raised,  that  he  would  feel  his  intuitions 
justified,  his  expectations  fulfilled,  and  should  send  his 
disciples  to  ask  the  definite  question,  Was  he  the  long 
expected  Messiah? 

1  An  admirable  instance  of  the  methods  of  modern  criticism  may  be 
studied  in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  ii.,  2501.  St.  Matthew  tells  us  that  the 
message  of  the  Baptist  to  Jesus  was  sent  when  John  was  in  prison.  Dr. 
Cheyne  does  not  accept  this.  At  once  the  question  arises,  Why  did  not 
John  come  himself?  So  a  reason  has  to  be  found  in  the  urgency  of  his  work. 
But  why  should  we  prefer  a  nineteenth-century  conjecture  to  the  evidence 
of  a  contemporary?  It  is  a  characteristic  of  certain  modern  criticism  that 
it  never  accepts  any  statement  in  original  documents  if  it  can  avoid  doing 
so,  and  prefers  to  reconstruct  the  history  in  a  purely  conjectural  manner. 
The  question  has  been  asked:  Would  John  in  prison  have  the  freedom  and 
the  opportunity  to  be  able  to  know  about  Jesus,  to  have  intercourse  with 
his  disciples,  and  to  send  a  message?  The  answer  is,  Certainly,  under  the 
normal  conditions  of  Oriental  confinement.    It  would  mean  httle  more  than 


158  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

How  long  John  was  kept  in  prison  we  have  no  certain 
information.  The  end  was  a  grim  tragedy.  Herod  cele- 
brated a  great  birthday  feast,  and  Salome,  the  daughter 
of  Herodias  by  her  first  husband,  afterwards  the  wife  of 
Philip  the  Tetrarch,  danced  before  him  and  gave  him  great 
pleasure.  He  promised  her  whatsoever  she  should  ask, 
and,  prompted  by  her  mother,  she  demanded  the  head  of 
John  the  Baptist.  Herod  was  grieved;  but  he  had  promised, 
he  had  promised  pubHcly,  and  he  kept  his  word.  He  sent 
and  beheaded  John  in  prison,  and  Herodias  had  her  desire. 
But  the  whole  Jewish  people  condemned  the  murder,  and 
when,  not  long  afterwards,  Herod's  army  suffered  a  severe 
defeat  at  the  hands  of  Aretas,  it  was  looked  upon  as  the 
divine  vengeance  for  the  crime. 

John  died,  and  the  movement  he  had  originated  lost  its 
vitaHty.  He  had  indeed  collected  a  body  of  disciples  round 
him.  Under  his  influence  they  had  Uved  a  religious  Hfe. 
He  had  taught  them  to  pray;  they  had  their  rules  of  fasting, 
which  they  fulfilled;  they  continued  to  baptize.  Like  other 
small  sects  they  kept  together,  and  we  find  traces  of  their 
influence  two  generations  later  in  remote  parts  of  the  world. 
More  than  that,  in  the  strange  religious  atmosphere  of  the 
East,  we  hear  of  new  sects  which  honoured  his  name  and 
claimed  to  preserve  his  teaching  and  rites.  But  all  these 
are  but  the  curiosities  and  by-ways  of  religion.  They 
grew  up  in  the  deserts  of  Judaea,  in  Syria,  in  Mesopotamia, 
and  gave,  no  doubt,  some  strange  religious  satisfaction  to 
the  Httle  coteries  which  were  formed,  but  they  exercised 
no  influence  on  the  great  current  of  the  world's  life,  and 
the  true  succession  of  John's  teaching  was  otherwise 
preserved. 

John  died,  but  the  hope  in  which  he  lived  was  not  dis- 
appointed. The  mission  which  he  had  undertaken  had 
been  accomplished.  The  Messiah  of  whom  he  was  the 
forerunner  had  come.  Initiated  by  him,  inspired  by  his 
teaching,  using  his  language  and  his  rites,  starting  from 
that  great  appeal  to  the  primal  fact  of  a  righteous 
life,    that   withdrawal   of   religion   from    the   fantasies   and 

the  restraint  of    liberty.     The  Eastern  prison  does  not  generally  mean  soli- 
tary confinement  or  seclusion  as  we  conceive  it. 


AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  NARRATIVE        159 

crudities  and  narrowness  in  which  it  had  been  involved, 
a  great  movement  had  been  started  which,  honouring  him 
in  all  his  sternness  and  austerity  as  its  forerunner,  but 
bearing  the  more  sweet  and  blessed  name  of  that  neophyte 
whom  he  had  greeted  as  the  Lamb  of  God,  had  swept  for- 
ward into  the  great  world,  had  attacked  the  citadel  where 
evil  seemed  to  be  enthroned,  had  conquered  pagan  civihza- 
tion,  had  transformed  it  with  a  new  hfe,  and  raised  the 
mighty  fabric  of  the  Christian  Church. 

IV 

What  are  we  to  say  of  John  the  Baptist? 

I  may  be  allowed,  I  think,  to  dismiss  uninvestigated 
the  various  theories  which  look  upon  him  as  a  mythical 
person  and  explain  the  story  of  the  baptism  of  our  Lord 
as  an  astral  event.^  We  cannot  afford  to  spend  time  over 
such  learned  trifling.  Let  us  recognize  fundamentally  that 
we  are  dealing  with  a  great  movement  which  started  in 
Palestine  in  the  preaching  of  John,  and  spread  thence 
throughout  the  world,  that  the  herald  and  first  preacher 
of  the  kingdom  was  a  man  of  virile  character,  of  stern 
morahty  and  deep  piety,  whose  Hneaments  can  be  discerned 
very  clearly  in  the  fragmentary  but  vivid  records  which 
have  been  preserved  to  us,  and  that  the  great  movements  of 
the  world  are  not  created  by  fantastic  fables.  Our  history 
deals  with  reahty  and  a  creation  as  real  as  the  Christian 

^  Here  is  an  instance  taken  from  The  Christ  Myth  of  Professor  Drews, 
p.  122:  "Under  the  name  John,  which  in  Hebrew  means  'pleasing  to  God', 
is  concealed  the  Babylonian  water-god,  Cannes  (Ea).  Baptism  is  connected 
with  this  worship,  and  the  baptism  of  Jesus  in  the  Jordan  represents  the  re- 
flection upon  earth  of  what  originally  took  place  among  the  stars.  That  is 
to  say,  the  sun  begins  its  yearly  course  with  a  baptism,  entering  as  it  does 
immediately  after  its  birth  the  constellation  of  the  water-carrier  (Aquarius), 
and  the  fishes  (Pisces).  But  this  celestial  water-kingdom,  in  which  each 
year  the  day-star  (sun)  is  purified  and  born  again,  is  the  Eridanus,  the 
heavenly  Jordan,  or  Year-stream  (Egyptian,  iaro  or  iero,  the  river),  where- 
in the  original  baptism  of  the  Divine  Saviour  of  the  world  took  place." 
It  is  obviously  possible  to  write  like  this  to  an  unlimited  extent,  for  such 
speculation  is  not  controlled  by  reason  or  evidence  or  probability.  An  ex- 
amination of  this  and  similar  theories  may  be  found  in  Thorburn,  The 
Mythical  Interpretation  of  the  Gospels,  p.  118. 


i6o  JOHN  THE   BAPTIST 

Church  must  have  been  created  by  founders  who  were  real 
and  had  the  spiritual  power  to  accomplish  their  task. 

We  may  dismiss  again  many  of  the  critical  objections 
which  have  been  raised  to  details  of  the  narrative.  It  may 
be,  indeed,  that  this  or  that  story  is  not  correctly  given,  and 
the  fact  of  discrepancies  between  the  different  accounts 
shows  that  we  are  not  to  expect  an  accuracy  here .  which 
we  never  find  in  secular  history,  and  that  it  is  necessary 
for  us,  as  for  other  investigators,  to  balance  one  version 
of  a  narrative  against  another  in  order  to  discover  the  real 
sequence  of  events.  But  there  is  no  reason  for  thinking 
that  information  could  not  be  preserved,  or  that  it  did  not 
exist.  There  is  a  tendency  in  modern  times  to  underrate 
the  literary  activity  and  the  intelligence  of  periods  when 
the  conditions  of  life  were  in  many  ways  so  unlike  our  own. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jews 
were  able  to  read  and  write,  that  the  study  and  knowledge 
of  the  Scriptures  was  widely  diffused,  and  that  there  was 
a  considerable  popular  literature.  Moreover,  the  memory 
of  the  student  was  carefully  trained,  and  a  great  body  of 
oral  tradition  was  preserved  in  that  way.  The  retirement 
of  John  in  the  desert  would  not  mean  an  illiterate  life. 
He  would  read  and  reread  the  rolls  of  Scripture,  and  ponder 
over  the  passages  imprinted  on  his  memory.  When  a  body 
of  disciples  gathered  round  him  they  would  listen  to  his 
words,  they  would  con  them  as  did  the  students  in  the 
schools  of  the  Rabbis,  as  do  those  in  the  mosque  of  El  Azhar 
in  Egypt  at  the  present  day.  His  vivid,  picturesque  lan- 
guage would  impress  itself  on  their  minds.  Some  might 
write  them  down,  and  a  record  of  his  teaching,  preserving 
words  that  had  touched  the  imagination  and  giving  incidents 
that  had  been  remembered,  but  destitute  of  chronological 
order  and  of  the  details  demanded  by  academic  histories, 
would  quickly  come  into  being.  Books  were  not  long,  but 
a  vivid,  popular  intelligence  would  preserve  a  picture 
accurate  in  all  points  that  mattered  in  short  words.  A 
truthful  history  would  be  created. 

And  the  narrative  bears  all  the  marks  of  truth.  The 
message  throughout  is  consistent.  It  is  emphatically  the 
message  of  the  prophet.     It  is  a  simple  message,  it  is  like 


THE  ESSENES  i6i 

that  of  Jesus;  but  it  is  without  that  profound  rehgious 
insight  that  He  exhibited.  Its  contents  were  such  as  might 
be  learned  from  the  prophets  by  one  who  could  penetrate 
to  their  spirit.  It  is  expressed  in  a  style  which  is  markedly 
John's  own,  a  style  also  which,  Hke  the  thoughts,  is  derived 
directly  from  the  study  of  the  prophets.  They  exhibit  few 
or  no  signs  of  having  been  coloured  by  later  thought.  The 
language  and  thought  of  John  are  simple,  direct,  personal, 
but  they  differ  from  the  simplicity  and  reality  of  Jesus. 

We  may  accept,  then,  the  narrative  as  we  can  construct 
it  from  our  different  authorities  as  giving  a  history  truthful 
in  all  that  matters,  and  investigate  the  origin  and  character 
of  the  Baptist's  teaching  as  it  has  been  depicted  to  us. 

It  is  not  unreasonable  to  seek  this  in  some  kind  of  rela- 
tionship with  a  community  like  that  of  the  Essenes.  They 
dwelt,  we  know,  in  the  same  place  that  tradition  assigns  to 
his  novitiate,  the  wilderness  of  Judaea.  Like  him  they  were 
ascetics  in  their  life,  pure  in  their  morals,  fervent  in  their 
rehgion.  Like  him  they  laid  great  stress  on  a  ceremonial 
washing  which,  with  them,  was  constantly  repeated.  It 
seems  not  unnatural  to  find  here  the  direct  source  of  his 
message.  But  a  more  careful  enquiry  will  reveal  to  us 
differences  which  are  perhaps  less  obvious,  but  are,  for  all 
that,  most  profound.  The  Essene  had  no  thought  of  a 
Hfe  except  one  which  was  Hved  apart  from  the  world.  He 
had  no  gospel  to  give  except  for  those  who  retired  from  the 
business,  the  pleasures,  and  the  temptations  of  life.  But 
John's  message  was  for  those  who  Hved  in  the  world.  The 
Essene  would  have  bidden  the  soldier  shun  a  profession 
which  imphed  the  destruction  of  life  and  was  accompanied 
by  so  much  evil,  but  John  contemplates  him  continuing  in 
his  calling,  and  only  bids  him  act  justly  and  avoid  outrage 
and  cruelty.  The  Essene  would  have  told  the  tax-gatherer 
that  the  wealth  with  which  he  was  always  busied  was  evil, 
and  that  the  public  society  which  was  supported  by  the 
taxes  which  he  collected  was  the  kingdom  of  the  Evil  One, 
and  that  he  must  shun  all  worldly  combinations  if  he  would 
live  the  Hfe  God  had  ordered  for  him.  But  John  was 
satisfied  with  bidding  him  to  practise  his  calling  justly  and 
avoid  extortion.     The  gospel  of  John  was  for  men  living 


i62  JOHN  THE   BAPTIST 

in  the  world,  the  gospel  of  the  Essene  was  for  the  recluse, 
the  ascetic,  and  the  eccentric.  Nor  was  the  analogy  with 
John's  baptism  more  than  superficial.  The  Essene  sur- 
rounded his  life  with  a  multitude  of  minute  observances. 
He  was  never  tired  of  creating  prohibitions.  He  was  con- 
cerned with  a  great  number  of  unimportant  trivialities. 
He  was  scrupulous  and  pedantic  and  tiresome.  But  John 
spoke  of  judgment,  and  repentance,  and  a  clean  heart,  and 
his  baptism  was  but  the  symbol  of  that  change.  Between 
the  strong,  stern  prophet,  with  a  clear  message  for  the  world, 
and  the  white-robed  Essene,  surrounding  himself  with  a 
mass  of  formalities,  thinking  of  his  clothes  and  his  food  and 
every  triviaHty  of  Hfe,  troubling  himself  about  so  many 
things  that  did  not  really  matter  at  all,  and  with  no  possible 
gospel  for  the  world,  what  real  analogy  was  there? 

There  were  other  sects  that  arose  now  or  at  a  later  date 
with  similar  tendencies  whose  names  are  recounted  in  the 
obscure  and  confused  pages  of  Epiphanius.  Some  of  these, 
such  as  the  Hemerobaptists,  no  doubt  also  laid  stress  on 
washings  and  baptism.  The  existence  of  these  sects  is 
undoubted  evidence  of  the  religious  activity  and  interest 
of  the  times,  but  most  of  them  were  the  result  rather  than 
the  inspiration  of  John's  teaching,  and  not  only  is  our 
knowledge  of  them  imperfect,  but  there  is  a  complete 
absence  of  any  evidence  of  connection,  and  we  cannot 
build  up  history  on  conjectures  unsupported  by  any 
testimony. 

But  this  much  may  be  conceded  on  the  relation  of  John's 
baptism  to  other  movements  of  the  time.  While  it  is  true, 
as  we  believe,  that  it  was  directly  from  the  prophets  that 
he  drew  his  conception  of  baptism  as  characteristic  of  the 
Messianic  times,  it  is  also  true  that  we  are  guided  always 
by  our  environment  in  what  we  can  see  in  the  Scriptures 
and  learn  from  them.  We  read  them  in  accordance  with 
the  circumstances  of  the  day,  and  learn  from  them  the 
lesson  needed  for  the  times.  The  fact  that  baptisms  in 
some  form  or  other  were  so  much  in  the  mind  of  teachers 
of  religion  would  inevitably  turn  John's  mind  in  his  re- 
searches, however  unconsciously  it  might  be,  to  the  refer- 
ences he  might  find  to  it  in  the  Scriptures.    We  may  put  it 


JOHN  AS  A  PROPHET  163 

somewhat  deeper:  The  Hfe  of  the  times  and  the  exceeding 
sinfulness  of  men  (as  people  held)  made  earnest  people  ask 
how  all  this  sin  might  be  washed  away  from  the  world. 
A  cleansing  seemed  to  be  the  need  of  the  times,  and  custom, 
tradition,  symbolism,  turned  their  thoughts  to  the  cleansing 
purity  of  water,  John,  as  others,  desired  a  cleansing,  and 
he  turned  to  the  prophet  and  read  of  a  sprinkling  with 
water  and  a  cTiange  of  heart  and  the  pouring  forth  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  purifying  fire  of  God,  and  he  preached 
a  baptism  of  repentance,  and  bid  men  change  their  heart, 
and  looked  forward  earnestly  to  the  pouring  forth  of  the 
Spirit  and  the  lire  which  would  cleanse  the  good  and  destroy 
the  evil. 

A  similar  judgment  may  be  passed  on  the  apocalyptic 
interpretation  of  the  Baptist's  preaching.^  It  is  obviously 
true  that  he  has  eschatological  conceptions.  He  looks 
forward  to  judgment,  and  bids  men  prepare  for  it;  he  ex- 
pects the  Messiah  who  is  to  come.  It  is  true,  also,  that 
there  was  much  eschatological  expectation  in  the  air,  and  all 
men  are  influenced  by  their  environment.  But  the  inspira- 
tion of  John  was  drawn  directly  from  the  prophets  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  not  from  the  fantastic  imaginings  of 
the  book  of  Enoch.  It  was  natural  enough  that  when  so 
many  dreams  and  visions  of  the  future  filled  people's  minds, 
and  men  were  seeking  for  some  alleviation  to  the  miseries 
of  the  times  in  these  visions  of  vengeance  and  glory,  that 
John,  poring  over  the  Old  Testament,  should  seek  there  its 
message  for  the  future.  But  the  fundamental  point  is  that 
his  message  is  prophetic  and  not  apocalyptic.  Its  essence 
lay,  not  in  looking  for  or  in    revealing    strange  mysteries, 

1  The  apocalyptic  interpretation  of  John  Baptist's  life  is  insisted  on  by 
Schweitzer,  Tlic  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus,  E.T.,  see  especially  p.  366: 
"Historically  regarded,  the  Baptist,  Jesus,  and  Paul  are  simply  the  cul- 
minating manifestations  of  Jewish  apocalyptic  thought."  P.  368:  "The 
Baptist  and  Jesus  are  not,  therefore,  borne  upon  the  current  of  a  general 
eschatological  movement.  The  period  offers  no  event  calculated  to  give  an 
impulse  to  eschatological  enthusiasm.  They  themselves  set  the  times  in 
motion  by  acting,  by  creating  eschatological  facts."  P.  377:  "The  baptism 
of  John  was  therefore  an  eschatological  sacrament,  pointing  forward  to  the 
pouring  forth  of  the  spirit,  and  to  the  judgment,  a  provision  for  'salva- 
tion.'"   And  much  of  the  same  sort. 

12 


i64  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

but  rather  in  the  renewed  conception  of  the  righteousness 
of  God,  and  in  the  preparation  for  the  judgment,  the 
kingdom,  and  the  Messiah,  by  leading  a  righteous  life  and  the 
cleansing  from  sin.     John's  message  is  profoundly  ethical. 

We  shall  continually,  in  the  course  of  our  investigation, 
be  confronted  by  the  introduction  of  apocalyptic  and 
eschatological  interpretations,  and  we  may  rightly  express 
our  obligations  to  those  scholars  who  have  emphasized  this 
element  in  the  religious  thought  of  the  time  and  its  influence 
on  the  teaching  of  our  Lord.  It  is,  however,  a  cause  of 
failure  in  many  scholars  that,  instead  of  following  their 
texts,  they  allow  themselves  to  be  overpowered  by  some 
mastering  idea,  and  then  pour  the  history  into  that  mould. 
This  is  true  in  a  marked  manner  of  the  modern  eschatological 
interpretation.  It  has  given  a  meaning  to  much  which 
was  obscure,  and  illuminated  the  whole  period.  But  it  is 
only  one  current  of  thought,  and  the  first  duty  of  any 
investigator  of  difficult  historical  problems  must  be  to  hold 
any  theory  or  hypothesis  or  explanation  with  the  question 
ever  present  subconsciously  in  his  mind,  whether  such 
theory  is  true  or  applicable  to  the  particular  circumstances. 
Many  strands  of  varied  colour  are  woven  together  into  the 
Gospel  narrative,  and  we  do  not  explain  it  by  allowing 
ourselves  to  see  only  one  colour.  Imperfect  generaHzations 
must  not  dominate  our  history. 

If  we  turn  from  the  region  of  modern  conjecture  to  the 
more  sober  records  of  history,  we  shall  find  an  answer  to 
our  questions  easier.  The  teaching  of  our  Lord  on  the 
ministry  of  John  was  as  clear  and  expKcit  as  it  was  authori- 
tative. John  was,  above  all,  a  prophet.  So  the  people 
had  always  believed.  "All  men  counted  John  as  a 
prophet."  So  tradition  definitely  asserted.  "He  shall  be 
called  the  prophet  of  the  Most  Highest."  He  was  more 
than  that,  he  was  the  greatest  of  the  prophets.  In  his 
strength  and  austerity  he  is  contrasted  with  the  reed  shaken 
by  the  wind  or  the  courtier  clothed  in  soft  raiment.  There 
was  none  greater  among  those  born  of  women. 

John  was  Elijah  too.  So  our  Lord  had  taught.  He 
was  the  messenger  who  had  been  predicted:  "Behold,  I 
send  my  messenger  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before 


JOHN  AS  A  WITNESS  165 

me."  After  the  vision  of  the  Transfiguration  there  was 
discussion  among  the  disciples.  They  were  pondering  over 
the  question  whether  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  wondering 
whether  all  the  signs  of  His  coming  had  been  fulfilled.  One 
of  the  signs,  so  the  scribes  said,  was  that  EHjah  must  first 
come.  Our  Lord  assented.  Ehjah  was  to  come  and 
restore  all  things.  He  had  come,  but  he  had  had  to  suffer 
as  the  Son  of  Man,  too,  must  suffer.  "If  ye  are  ready  to 
receive  it,  this  is  that  Elijah  which  was  to  come." 

Much  discussion  has  arisen  as  to  the  reason  which  caused 
John  to  deny  that  he  was  Ehjah. ^  It  seems  a  hazardous 
suggestion  to  offer,  that  the  reason  that  he  did  so  was  the 
fact  that  he  knew  that  in  no  real  sense  of  the  word  was  he 
Elijah.  He  knew  —  for  God  had  spoken  to  him  —  that  the 
day  was  at  hand,  he  knew  that  it  was  his  function  to  pre- 
pare for  it,  and  that  the  preparation  was  the  message  of 
righteousness;  but  no  conviction  or  voice  told  him  that  he 
was  Elijah,  so  he  said  only  what  he  felt  and  described  his 
consciousness  of  his  mission  in  language  drawn  from  the 
prophet.  It  was  quite  another  matter  that  Christian  tradi- 
tion should  look  upon  him  as  having  come  in  the  spirit  and 
power  of  Elijah,  and  that  our  Lord,  conscious  of  his  Mes- 
sianic office,  should  be  able  to  explain  that  the  Messianic 
signs  were  all  fulfilled,  for  Elijah  had  come  —  John  was  Elijah. 

There  is  one  more  aspect  of  John's  Hfe  which  must  be 
emphasized.  It  has  been  remarked  that  the  fourth  Gospel 
lays  Uttle  stress  on  his  preaching  or  his  baptism.  These 
are  merely  referred  to,  although  in  a  manner  which  shows 
that  the  writer  knew  of  them,  and  instead  the  whole  em- 
phasis is  laid  on  the  work  of  the  forerunner  as  one  who 
witnessed  to  Christ.  Great  emphasis  is  laid  on  the  im- 
portance of  this  witness.  Not  only  is  the  testimony  on  at 
least  two  occasions  recorded,  but  there  are  references  to 
it  at  other  places  in  the  narrative:  "Ye  have  sent  unto 
John  and  he  hath  borne  witness  unto  the  truth,  but  the 
witness  that  I  have  is  greater  than  that  of  John."     And 

^  It  is  interesting  to  notice  that  this  denial  occurs  only  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  and  that  those  critics  who  leap  at  the  statement,  as  it  seems  to 
make  a  difficulty,  resolutely  refuse  to  accept  the  unsupported  testimony  of 
that  Gospel  in  other  cases  where  it  provides  no  material  for  fault-finding. 


i66  JOHN  THE  BAPTIST 

we  are  told  of  the  people  where  John  first  baptized,  how 
they  said,  "John  did  no  miracle,  but  all  things  whatsoever 
John  spake  of  this  man  are  true."  Now  the  whole  of  this 
aspect  of  John's  ministry  has  been  doubted;  it  has  been 
maintained  that  it  is  an  anachronism,  and  that  John  really 
never  knew  anything  of  Jesus  until  he  heard  of  Jesus 
preaching  while  he  was  in  prison.  If  that  were  the  case  it 
would  be  difficult  to  know  why  the  story  should  have  been 
developed,  and  such  emphasis  laid  upon  it.  It  is  true  that 
disciples  of  John  remained,  and  that  even  in  Asia  there  were 
those  who  knew  only  of  the  baptism  of  John,  but  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  they  were  of  sufficient  impor- 
tance to  have  made  it  necessary  to  forge  a  whole  string 
of  incidents  and  discourses  so  as  to  prove  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus. 

It  is  indeed  a  hazardous  conjecture,  but  it  may  be  sug- 
gested that  it  is  possible  that  the  reason  of  this  conception 
of  John's  mission  is  that  it  was  a  true  one.  The  story  tells 
us  that  an  unnamed  disciple  of  John  had  been  induced  by 
the  master's  testimony  to  attach  himself  to  Jesus,  and 
tradition  has  held  that  that  disciple  was  the  author  of  the 
Gospel,  or  at  any  rate  the  recorder  of  the  traditions  con- 
tained in  the  Gospel.  It  was  clear  that  he  had  learnt  about 
Jesus  from  the  witness  of  John,  and  that  to  him  the  witness 
was  of  great  importance,  so  naturally  he  records  it  and 
emphasizes  it.  The  hypothesis  is  a  simple  one,  is  it  there- 
fore untrue?  Or  is  it  not  possible  that  when  the  natural 
interpretation  of  a  record  harmonizes  with  common  sense  it 
may  be  more  likely  to  be  true  than  wrong-headed  learning? 
It  was  the  testimony  of  John  that  first  sent  the  disciple 
to  Jesus,  and  the  disciple  had  never  since  doubted  the 
value  to  himself  of  that  testimony. "^ 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  realize  what  feelings  amongst  the 

1  It  may  be  convenient  to  put  together  the  reasons  for  considering  that 
the  connection  of  our  Lord  with  John  Baptist  was  closer  than  would  be 
gathered  at  first  sight  from  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  (i)  The  language  of  our 
Lord  about  the  Baptist  implies  close  intimacy.  (2)  The  fact  that  all  the 
Gospels  place  the  work  of  the  Baptist  at  the  beginning  of  their  narrative 
of  Jesus'  preaching  implies  that  it  was  thought  that  there  was  a  real  con- 
nection between  the  two  movements.  (3)  The  qualification  of  an  apostle 
is  described  as  being  a  witness  from  the  preaching  of  John.     This  suggests 


JOHN  AS   A  PROPHET  167 

religious-minded  Israelites  must  have  been  aroused  by  the 
knowledge  that  a  prophet  had  once  more  risen  in  Israel.^ 
The  consciousness  that  for  so  many  centuries  God  had  not 
spoken  to  Israel  through  a  prophet  was  keenly  felt.  The 
canon  of  the  prophetic  books  had  been  closed.  There  was 
no  more  open  vision.  It  is  significant  how  at  the  very 
moment  of  the  Maccabean  triumph,  when  Jerusalem  had 
been  recovered  and  the  temple  was  being  purified,  the 
stones  of  the  polluted  altar  were  laid  aside  "until  there 
should  come  a  prophet  to  give  an  answer  concerning  them  "; 
and  when  Simon  is  formally  accepted  as  leader  and  high 
priest,  it  is  stated  that  it  is  done  "until  there  should  arise 
a  faithful  prophet."^  Neither  the  subtleties  of  the  scribes 
nor  the  fantasies  of  the  apocalyptic  writers  satisfied  the 
spiritual  sense  of  the  people.  Now  at  last  a  prophet  had 
arisen.  The  people  had  heard  him  and  accepted  him;  the 
publicans  and  harlots  had  repented  of  their  sins;  but  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  did  not  beHeve  him.  He  had  created 
so  great  an  impression  that  when  Jesus  began  to  preach 
there  were  many  who  thought  that  JoTin  the  Baptist  had 
arisen  from  the  dead.  The  feeling  which  has  so  often 
prevailed  that  some  great  hero  or  popular  saint  could  not 
really  have  died  and  would  appear  again  showed  itself  in 
his  case.  As  Arthur  waits  with  all  his  court  under  Cadbury 
Hill,  as  the  Pyrenees  will  once  more  echo  to  the  trumpets 
of  Charlemagne  and  his  Paladins,  as  EHas  was  to  come 
again,  so  John  had  again  appeared  on  earth. 

that  some  or  most  of  the  disciples  had  been  at  least  hearers  of  John.  (4) 
The  statement  that  Jesus  returned  to  Galilee  after  the  Baptist  was  im- 
prisoned means  that  up  to  that  time  he  had  been  associated  with  him. 
(s)  If  the  tradition  of  St.  John  be  accepted  the  whole  story  is  much  more 
coherent  and  self-consistent. 

^  The  significance  of  the  revival  of  the  prophetic  office  is  admirably  ex- 
pressed by  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo,  pp.  2,  3.  "It  was  the  glory  of  John 
the  Baptist  to  have  successfully  revived  the  function  of  a  prophet.  For 
several  centuries  the  function  had  remained  in  abeyance.  .  .  .  When  John 
the  Baptist  appeared,  not  the  oldest  man  in  Palestine  could  remember  to  have 
spoken  in  his  earliest  childhood  with  any  man  who  had  seen  a  prophet.  .  .  . 
In  these  circumstances  it  was  an  occurrence  of  the  first  magnitude,  more 
important  far  than  war  or  revolution,  when  a  new  prophet  actually  ap- 
peared." 

2  I  Mace.  iv.  46;    xiv.  41. 


i68  JOHN  THE   BAPTIST 

The  statement  that  John  was  a  prophet  reveals  to  us  the 
real  significance  of  his  ministry.  He  came  in  the  way  of 
righteousness.  It  is  significant  how  much  stress  is  laid  in 
the  story  of  his  birth  on  this  conception.  His  parents  were 
righteous  before  God.  He  will  teach  the  disobedient  to 
walk  in  the  wisdom  of  the  just.  Israel  in  the  days  of  the 
Messiah  is  to  serve  in  holiness  and  righteousness  before  God, 
They  are  to  walk  in  the  way  of  peace.  Peace  towards  God, 
righteousness  among  men,  is  the  note  of  prophecy.  The 
extreme  eschatological  interpretation  has  no  support  in  our 
texts.  The  expectation  of  judgment  and  a  speedy  end  of 
this  order  of  things  did  not  mean  that  a  righteous  life  in  the 
world  was  of  quite  subordinate  interest.  It  meant  that 
it  was  of  supreme  importance.  The  preaching  of  John 
meant  in  fact  the  restoration  of  the  true  genius  of  Israel, 
of  that  aim  which  had  been  the  richest  possession  of  the 
chosen  people  since  they  first  learnt  that  Jehovah  was  a 
god  unlike  those  of  the  surrounding  nations.  It  was  for 
this  they  had  fought  and  suffered  against  the  assaults  of 
Syrian  nature  worship;  it  was  this  that  had  been  their 
strength  in  the  days  of  the  captivity  and  had  been  the 
guiding  principle  in  the  restoration  of  the  theocratic  state; 
it  was  for  this  that  under  the  Maccabees  they  had  resisted 
the  cruel  attacks  of  Hellenism,  and  now  in  the  last  days  of 
the  Jewish  nation,  before  Judaism  had  attained  its  con- 
summation the  message  of  righteousness  is  heard  with  the 
clear,  ringing  voice  of  the  last  prophet. 

So,  said  Jesus,  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  are  the  end 
of  an  old  order  of  things  and  the  beginning  of  a  new.  From 
Moses  to  John  had  been  the  epoch  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  Their  work  was  accomplished;  their  reign  was 
over.  With  John  had  come  the  first  dawn  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  —  a  new  and  higher  condition  of  life  —  the  least  who 
has  heard  and  accepted  the  message-  of  the  kingdom  is 
greater  than  John. 

The  message  of  John,  then,  was  the  preparation  for  the 
Messianic  Age  by  the  restoration  of  the  simple  but  profound 
Jewish  conception  of  religion  as  righteousness  in  the  sight 
of  God.  Many  of  the  Jewish  people  had  fallen  away  and 
learnt  to  copy  the  evil  fife  of  the  heathen,  many  others 


THE   PREACHER  OF   RIGHTEOUSNESS       169 

followed  an  imperfect  way  of  religion.  They  learnt  to  rely 
on  the  temple  and  the  cult  and  all  the  privileges  of  the 
nation,  or  they  had  substituted  an  unreal  and  ecclesiastical 
system  consisting  in  the  scrupulous  performance  of  a 
ceremonial  morality  for  the  justice  and  holiness  which 
the  prophets  had  taught,  or  they  had  been  attracted  by 
fanciful  ways  of  hfe  or  systems  of  thought.  John  comes, 
and  with  clearness,  simplicity,  and  conviction  recalls  them 
to  the  true  way  of  Israel's  religion.  It  was  the  highest 
revelation  of  Hfe  which  had  yet  been  given  to  man;  it 
was  the  necessary  preparation  for  the  higher  revelation  which 
was  to  come.  It  was  the  condition  of  preaching  the  Gospel. 
For  the  religion  of  Israel,  great  and  holy  as  it  was,  and 
essential  as  it  was  to  a  preparation  for  the  reUgion  of  Christ, 
had  the  defect  of  all  systems  of  simple  morality.  It  had 
no  universal  attractiveness,  it  burned  with  no  hidden  fire, 
it  saw  no  vision.  The  Jewish  people  had  been  dispersed 
throughout  the  world,  and  their  manner  of  hfe  had  attracted 
much  curiosity,  and  philosophers  had  enquired  into  it,  and 
some  few  had  accepted  its  message,  but  it  had  shown  no 
power  to  warm  the  heart  or  to  illuminate  the  understanding 
or  fire  the  spirit.  It  was  the  preparation,  the  necessary 
preparation,  for  the  true  revelation  of  reHgion,  but  it  was 
not  rehgion.  That  was  why  the  prophet  looked  forward 
to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  of  fire,  and  why  Jesus  had 
said  that  he  that  was  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  was 
greater  than  John.  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven  had  come, 
and  from  his  days  the  violent  had  rent  it.  A  powerful 
solvent  had  come  into  the  world.  A  message  of  mercy  and 
love,  but  a  message  which  would  often  bring  not  peace 
but  a  sword.  A  message  which  would  discriminate  good 
from  evil,  which  would  rouse  up  violent  passions  that 
would  be  too  strong  for  it,  and  might  rend  it  asunder. 
It  is  the  revelation  of  religion  that  we  have  next  to  study.^ 

1  It  is  in  this  that  the  author  of  Ecce  Homo  finds  the  significance  of 
Christ's  teaching,  p.  8:  "The  phrase  'baptize  with  fire'  seems  at  first  sight 
to  contain  a  mixture  of  metaphors.  Baptism  means  cleansing,  and  fire 
means  warmth.  How  can  warmth  cleanse?  The  answer  is  that  moral 
warmth  does  cleanse.  No  heart  is  pure  that  is  not  passionate;  no  virtue 
is  safe  that  is  not  enthusiastic.  And  such  an  enthusiastic  virtue  Christ  was 
to  introduce." 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

"Jehovah,"  said  the  Rabbis,  "hath  created  seven  seas, 
but  the  sea  of  Gennesaret  is  His  dehght."  The  Lake  of 
GaHlee,  of  Tiberias,  of  Gennesaret,  for  by  all  these  names 
was  it  known,  is  situated  in  the  Upper  Jordan  valley  about 
thirty  miles  from  its  source  at  Caesarea  Philippi  and  seventy 
from  the  Dead  Sea.^  It  is  about  thirteen  miles  long  from 
north  to  south  and  seven  broad,  and  lies  nearly  700  feet 
below  the  level  of  the  sea.  It  is  surrounded  by  high 
ground  rising  some  2,000  feet  above  its  surface;  on  the 
east  by  steep  limestone  cliffs,  the  edge  of  the  platform  of 
the  Hauran;  on  the  west  by  hills  more  rounded  in  form  and 
less  precipitous.  A  narrow  strip  of  level  ground,  broadening 
in  places  into  small  plains,  intervenes  between  the  hills 
and  the  lake,  and  north  and  south  the  Jordan  has  created 
wide  alluvial  expanses.  Seen  from  the  south  its  main 
features  are  the  deep  blue  of  the  water,  often  dancing  in  the 
wind  and  sunshine,  the  dark,  bare,  sombre  mountains  that 
surround  it,  and  the  great  white  peak  of  Hermon  dominating 
the  landscape. 

At  the  present  day  it  presents  a  prospect  of  almost  com- 
plete desolation.  Though  its  waters  abound  in  fish,  no  sail 
appears  upon  its  surface,  and  though  its  shores  are  rich 
and  fertile,  but  little  is  reaped  from  them.  One  solitary 
decayed  town,  marking  the  site  of  Tiberias,  alone  remains. 
But  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  it  was  the  centre  of  a  large 
population.  Its  fish  were  exported  over  the  whole  of  the 
Eastern  Mediterranean,  and  the  fishing  industry  employed 
great  fleets  of  boats.  It  was  famous  for  its  rich  fruits,  for 
its  corn  and  wine  and  oil.  Nine  populous  towns,  many  of 
them  with  names  made  known  throughout  the  world  by 
the  Gospel  narrative,  were  situated  on  its  shores. 

1  On  the  Lake  of  Galilee  see  George  Adam  Smith,  The  Historical  Geog- 
raphy of  Palestine,  pp.  437-463. 

170 


THE   SEA  OF    GALILEE  171 

Where  the  waters  of  Jordan  left  the  lake  on  its  western 
side  stood  Taricheae/  that  gave  its  name  to  a  salt  fish,  the 
great  industry  of  the  lake.  It  was  a  populous  city;  when 
it  was  taken  by  Vespasian  the  able-bodied  captives  num- 
bered over  30,000.  Some  five  and  a  half  miles  north  on  its 
western  side  lay  Tiberias,-  newly  built  [by  Herod  Antipas, 
and  named  in  honour  of  the  Emperor,  with  its  great  citadel 
and  palace  dominating  the  town,  its  market-place  and  syna- 
gogue on  the  lower  ground,  and  some  two  miles  to  the  south 
its  famous  hot  springs.  At  first  shunned  by  stricter  Jews  for 
its  heathen  associations  and  the  accusation  of  impurity, 
in  later  days,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  it  became 
the  seat  of  the  Rabbinical  Schools  and  the  home  of  strict 
Judaism.  Three  miles  further  on  came  Magdala,  and  then 
the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  with  Capernaum  and  its  copious 
springs  at  the  northern  end.  Chorazin  was  on  the  slope 
of  the  hills  to  the  north,  and  on  the  east  bank  of  the  Jordan, 
\vhere  it  flowed  into  the  lake,  stood  Bethsaida  Julias,^  the 
city  which  Philip  had  built  in  honour  of  Julia,  daughter 
of  Augustus.  Beyond  was  another  small  grass-grown  plain. 
,  On  the  east  side  the  Jordan,  shortly  after  leaving  the 
lake,  is  joined  by  the  Yarmuk,  and  the  junction  of  the  two 
rivers  has  created  a  wide  fertile  plain,  on  the  high  cliffs 
above  which  stood  the  Greek  city  Gadara.  Its  temples, 
its  amphitheatre,  and  its  villas  dominating  the  landscape 
might  be  seen  far  up  the  lake,  and  were  visible  evidence  of 
Hellenic  life.  Further  north,  on  the  same  side,  were  Gamala 
and  Hippos;  the  former  rising  in  great  terraces  on  both  sides 
of  the  mountain,  the  latter  crowning  the  height  with  its 
temples.^  It  is  a  point  of  some  importance  that  while  the 
western  side  of  the  lake  was  included  in  the  territory  of 
Herod  Antipas,  and  was  therefore  Jewish,  the  eastern  side 
was  partly  in  the  territory  of  Philip,  partly  in  that  of  Greek 
cities  of  the  Decapohs. 

^  On  Taricheae  see  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  451^.,  who  gives  ample  refer- 
ences. 

2  Smith,  op.  cit.,  pp.  447  Jf. 

^  Ibid.,  pp.  457-8.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  requiring  two  places 
of  this  name  (see  Chapter  VII.,  p.  271). 

*  On  these  three  towns  see  Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  459;  on  Gamala,  Schiirer, 
Ceschichte,  i.,  615,  616;   on  Hippos,  ibid.,  ii.,  155;    on  Gadara,  ii.,  157. 


172  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  the  same  Sea  of  Gen- 
nesaret,  which  is  of  such  surpassing  interest  to  us  as  the 
centre  of  our  Lord's  ministry,  should  in  little  more  than 
thirty  years  have  been  conspicuous  in  the  great  war  as  the 
residence  of  the  historian  Josephus  when  governor  of 
Gahlee,  and  that  therefore  our  knowledge  of  it  should  be 
considerable.  It  is  his  description  which  makes  us  realize 
what  the  country  was  Hke  in  the  days  of  its  prosperity, 
before  the  terrible  blight  of  Mohammedan  and  Turkish 
rule  had  fallen  upon  it.  He  dwells  on  the  rich  fertility  of 
the  district,  the  purity  of  the  waters  of  the  lake,  and  its 
great  supphes  of  fish.  He  depicts  for  us  its  crowded  life, 
when  it  was  the  great  centre  of  Jewish  patriotism,  its  strong 
and  well-built  cities,  its  great  fleet  of  ships,  so  large  that 
they  could  be  used  in  war,  the  turbulence  and  craft  of  its 
people.  Now  all  has  passed  away,  and  as  we  gaze  upon 
its  beautiful  landscape,  we  wonder  whether  the  great  events 
of  our  own  day  will  mean  for  it  some  measure  of  good 
government  and  restored  prosperity. 

In  this  famous  land  the  most  fertile  spot  was  the  plain 
of  Gennesaret.  Thus  Josephus  describes  it:^  "Along  the 
shores  of  Gennesaret  there  runs  a  district  of  the  same 
name,  of  wonderful  fertihty  and  beauty.  There  is  no 
manner  of  trees  that  it  does  not  produce,  such  is  its  fertility, 
and  the  inhabitants  have  planted  every  kind.  The  air,  too, 
is  so  well  tempered  as  to  suit  all  alike.  Walnuts,  the  most 
hardy  of  trees,  flourish  there  in  vast  numbers,  as  also  do 
palms,  which  demand  a  hot  climate,  and  hard  by  these  you 
may  see  figs  and  olives  which  demand  a  more  temperate 
climate.  One  might  call  it  the  ambition  of  nature,  forcing 
things  that  contend  each  with  the  other  to  come  together 
in  one  place.  It  is  a  goodly  strife  of  the  seasons,  each  in 
its  turn  claiming  the  country  for  itself.  For  indeed  it  not 
only  produces  in  a  marvellous  way  the  different  fruits,  but 
it  preserves  them.  It  supplies  continually  for  ten  months 
the  most  royal  fruits,  the  fig  and  the  grape,  and  all  others 
throughout  the  year  as  they  become  ripe.  In  addition  to 
the  beauty  of  the  climate  it  is  watered  by  a  most  prolific 
spring,  called  Capharnaum  by  its  inhabitants." 

1  Josephus,  B.  J.,  iii.,  §  506-521,  and  other  places. 


CAPERNAUM  173 

It  was  at  the  northern  end  of  this  plain  Just  where  its 
warm  springs  ran  into  the  sea  that  Capernaum,  the  central 
spot  of  the  ministry  of  our  Lord,  was  situated.^  His  hfe 
and  teachings  were  perhaps  independent  of  the  accident  of 
place,  but  we  may  notice  that  the  warm  and  pleasant 
climate,  the  bountiful  supply  of  food,  and  the  easy  Hfe 
would  create  just  the  conditions  under  which  such  a  ministry 
could  be  carried  on,  and  that  from  the  simple  and  inde- 
pendent fishermen  of  the  lake  were  chosen  the  most  faithful 
of  His  followers,  men  who  in  after-life  in  such  different 
surroundings  testified  to  what  they  had  learnt  by  the  Sea  of 
Galilee  and  sealed  their  testimony  with  their  death. 


It  was  to  Capernaum  that  Jeus  came  after  the  imprison- 
ment of  John  had  broken  up  the  body  of  disciples  that 
surrounded  him.  The  motive  that  led  Him  to  that  place 
must  be  a  matter  of  conjecture.  It  has  been  thought  that 
it  had  become  the  home  of  His  mother  and  brothers,  but 
for  that  there  is  no  evidence;  in  fact,  the  narrative  makes 
it  quite  clear  that  He  was  Kving  apart  from  them.  It  is 
more  probable  that  it  was  because  there  He  would  find 
those  whom  He  wished  to  make  His  disciples.  There  is 
considerable  probability  that  the  sons  of  Zebedee  were  His 
cousins;  it  is  even  more  probable  that  all  the  first  four 
disciples  had  been  with  Jesus  Himself  disciples  of  the 
Baptist,  that  under  these  circumstances  they  had  become 
attached  to  Him,  that  He  thus  knew  them,  and  thought 
of  them  when  the  time  had  come  for  His  own  independent 
ministry  to  begin.-  Some  such  circumstarices  would  best 
explain  all  the  facts.     The  action  of  our  Lord  was  purpose- 

*  The  site  of  Capernaum  has  long  been  the  subject  of  controversy.  The 
two  rival  sites  are  Khan  Minyeh  on  the  northern  edge  of  Gennesaret,  and 
Tell  Hum,  about  two  miles  further  north.  See  Smith,  p.  456;  Sanday, 
Sacred  Sites  of  the  Gospels  (Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1903),  pp.  36-45. 
The  literature  on  the  subject  is  large.  My  own  belief  is  that  it  was  a  strag- 
gling, unwalled  town  or  village  which  extended  over  both  sites. 

^  St.  John  (i.  35-42)  definitely  implies  that  the  first  disciples  had  been 
with  the  Baptist,  and  this  corresponds  with  other  indications  (see  above, 
p.  167). 


174  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

ful.  The  times  were  fulfilled.  The  new  work  must  begin. 
The  purpose  must  be  accomplished.  To  carry  it  out,  He  be- 
gins by  summoning  those  who  were  to  be  His  first  disciples. 

So  Jesus  walked  by  the  Sea  of  Galilee  and  saw  Simon 
and  Andrew  his  brother  casting  their  nets  into  the  sea,  and 
He  said  to  them,  "Follow  Me,  and  I  will  make  you  fishers 
of  men."  ^  It  is  needless  to  suppose  that  events  happened 
as  abruptly  as  the  narrative  might  imply.  It  is  the  charac- 
teristic of  the  short,  pregnant  language  of  St.  Mark  that 
it  concentrates  attention  on  the  essential  point,  and  gives 
just  that  striking  sentence  which  would  inevitably  fix 
itself  indelibly  on  the  memory  of  those  who  heard  it. 
St.  Luke  gives  a  fuller  story,  wliich  had  probably  come  to 
him  by  tradition.^  But  it  is  in  the  words  recorded  by 
both  that  the  true  significance  of  the  event  Hes.  Jesus 
summoned  them  to  Him  as  a  rehgious  teacher,  with  the 
intention  of  preaching  a  Gospel  to  mankind.  He  already 
thought  of  Himself  as  a  Shepherd  of  Souls.  He  came  to 
convert  and  to  save.  It  is  sometimes  maintained  now 
that  Jesus  had  no  conception  of  His  true  mission,  that  He 
had  no  purpose  to  preach  a  Gospel,  or  to  gather  a  Church. 
Such  a  theory  is  not,  on  other  grounds,  tenable  and  is  quite 
inconsistent  with  these  words.  As  Jesus  drew  all  men 
unto  Him,  so  Peter  and  those  others  whom  He  summoned 
to  be  His  disciples  were  henceforth  to  catch  men. 

Jesus  passes  on  and  summons  likewise  the  two  sons  of 
Zebedee.^  All  these  first  disciples  were  men  of  substance 
and  position.  They  belonged  to  a  class  simple  and  inde- 
pendent. They  were  prepared  to  give  up  their  worldly 
calling  at  the  word  of  a  Master  whom  as  yet  they  im- 
perfectly knew,  and  they  were  to  find  that  they  had  obeyed 
a  summons  to  work  far  greater  than  anything  their 
imaginations  had  conceived.  Meanwhile  it  seems  as  if 
Peter's  house  became  the  Master's  home.  Peter  and  his 
brother,  the  two  sons  of  Zebedee,  and  perhaps  others, 
became  His  constant  attendants. 

Thus  began  the  Galilaean  ministry.  It  is  probable  that  to 
Peter  himself  we  owe  the  effective  but  restrained  account 
of  this  beginning.     On  the  next  Sabbath  Jesus  entered  the 

»  Mk.  i.  16-18.  2  Lk,  V.  i-ii.  3  Mk.  i.  19-20. 


THE   FIRST  DAY  175 

synagogue  and  began  to  preach.  All  that  heard  Him  felt 
that  they  were  Hstening  to  something  new  and  wonderful. 
The  nervous  tension  stirred  the  unbalanced  mind  of  one 
of  those  half-witted  men,  whom  the  thought  of  the  day 
held  to  be- possessed  of  an  unclean  spirit,  and  a  disturbance 
took  place.  But  the  same  authority  and  spiritual  power 
which  had  been  shown  in  the  teaching  rebuked  and  calmed 
the  lunatic.  Is  it  wonderful  that  the  repute  of  this  new 
Teacher  with  such  strange  power  began  to  spread  at  once 
through  the  crowded  villages  and  towns  surrounding  the 
Sea  of  Galilee?^ 

From  the  synagogue  Jesus  went  with  His  disciples  to 
Peter's  house  —  henceforth  to  be  His  home.  There  Peter's 
wife's  mother  lay  suffering  from  a  fever.  He  took  her 
by  the  hand,  and  raised  her  up.  The  fever  left  her,  and 
she  became  one  of  that  group  of  women  who  ministered  to 
His  needs."^  The  Sabbath  was  now  over.  The  sun  had  set. 
The  knowledge  of  these  new  and  strange  events  and  of  this 
wonderful  Teacher  had  spread  through  all  the  town,  so  the 
sick  and  the  afflicted  were  brought  to  the  house,  and  the 
people  crowded  round  the  door,  and  "Jesus  healed  many 
that  were  sick  and  cast  out  many  devils."^ 

But  there  was  yet  another  experience.  To  the  enthusiastic 
minds  of  the  first  disciples  it  might  seem  that  a  new  age  had 
come.  They  had  listened  to  teaching  such  as  no  man  had 
yet  heard.  They  had  witnessed  the  work  of  a  strange 
and  spiritual  power.  Would  not  all  evil  and  misery  speedily 
pass  away?  Jesus  had  begun  to  teach  about  the  kingdom. 
Had  not  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  earth  come?  They  were 
full  of  expectation  as  to  what  would  happen  when  morning 
came.  But  when  morning  came  Jesus  was  nowhere  in  the 
house.  He  had  risen  very  early  and  gone  forth  to  be  alone 
and  pray.  He  had  come  to  teach  men  spiritual  things. 
Was  He  to  be  a  mere  miracle  worker?  One  whom  the 
crowds  could  follow  as  they  did  some  charlatan  or  imposter? 
So  that  they  might  be  cured  without  troubling  themselves 
about  anything  more.  What  seemed  to  these  young  and 
enthusiastic  disciples  the  sign  of  His  success  might  seem 

1  Mk.  i.  21-28.  2  Mk.  i.  29-31.  »  Mk.  i.  32-34. 


176  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

to  Him  failure.  So  when  His  disciples  came  to  seek  Him 
to  bring  Him  back  to  the  crowds  that  were  asking  for  Him, 
He  met  their  request  by  saying  that  they  must  begin  and 
preach  through  all  the  villages  round.  For  it  was  to  preach 
that  He  had  come.  So  they  began  to  journey  through 
Gahlee.i 

Thus  began  the  Galilaean  ministry.  Its  centre  was 
Capernaum,  and  the  villages  round  the  lake,  in  particular 
Chorazin  and  Bethsaida.  At  Capernaum  He  taught  some- 
times in  the  town,  either  in  the  house  or  in  the  synagogue, 
sometimes  by  the  seashore.  At  times  we  are  told  how  He 
sought  solitude  either  alone  or  with  His  disciples  on  the 
range  of  hills  behind  the  town.  It  is  spoken  of  as  the 
mountain.  Then  at  intervals  His  ministry  has  a  wider 
area.  Accompanied  by  His  disciples  He  goes  on  extended 
tours  through  "GaUlee,  preaching  from  village  to  village. 
How  far  these  missionary  journeys  extended  must  be  to  a 
certain  extent  a  matter  of  conjecture.  Once  he  visited 
Nazareth,  with  singular  want  of  success.^  St.  Luke  tells 
us  of  an  incident  which  took  place  at  Nain,  on  the  south  side 
of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.^  This  imphes  that  His  journeys 
had  a  fairly  wide  circuit.  Once,  at  any  rate,  we  are  told 
how,  perhaps  to  avoid  the  crowds,  perhaps  for  reasons  of 
safety  as  a  temporary  retreat,  He  crossed  over  to  what 
was  probably  Greek  territory  on  the  further  side  of  the 
lake;  but  that  visit  also  seems  not  to  have  been  successful.'* 

On  His  earlier  journeys  He  was  accompanied  by  a  small 
body  of  disciples.  Later  the  whole  twelve  were  his  com- 
panions, and  St.  Luke  tells  us  how  a  number  of  women, 
some  of  whom  He  had  saved  from  a  hfe  of  sin,  or  cured  of 
disease,  followed  Him  and  supplied  His  wants.  Among 
them  there  seem  to  have  been  women  of  position.  It  is 
most  probable  that  these  journeys  took  place  during  the 
warm  weather  of  the  summer,  when  the  low  land  by  the  lake 
might  be  too  hot,  and  journeyings  on  the  higher  hills  would 

1  Mk.  i.  35-39. 

2  Mk.  vi.  1-6.  The  position  which  St.  Luke  ascribes  to  this  incident 
at  the  beginning  of  the  ministry  is  obviously  incorrect,  as  the  narrative 
refers  to  events  at  Capernaum  (Lk.  iv.  16-30). 

'  Lk.  vii.  11-17.  *  Mk.  v.  1-20, 


THE   PREACHING  OF  JESUS  177 

be  easier.  Sometimes  there  would  be  those  who  would 
be  ready  to  receive  and  entertain  the  company.  We  read 
of  rich  men  with  whom  He  dined,  and  occasionally  even 
of  Pharisees.  Many  villages  and  towns  might  Ijave  guest 
chambers.  It  would  be  the  custom  then,  as  now,  in  the 
East,  to  display  ready  hospitality,  especially  for  a  religious 
teacher.  Probably  this  would  be  common  early  in  the 
ministry,  before  an  official  opposition  had  grown  up.  Often 
and  especially  later,  there  would  be  no  place  for  them  to 
sleep  but  on  the  hill-side.  "Foxes  have  holes  and  the  birds 
of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where 
to  lay  His  head."^ 

The  main  purpose  of  the  ministry  was  to  preach,  and 
always,  as  long  as  it  was  possible,  in  the  synagogue.  Here 
was  the  centre  of  the  religious  life  of  the  people  and  here  — 
such  was  the  custom  of  the  day  —  was  the  opportunity  for 
any  new  prophet  or  teacher  to  be  heard.  The  synagogue, 
which  might  be  found  in  every  town  or  village,  was  generally 
a  long,  rectangular  building.  In  the  larger  synagogues 
the  roof  would  be  supported  by  rows  of  columns.  At  one 
end  was  the  Ark  where  the  rolls  of  Scripture  were  kept, 
and  in  front  of  it  the  chief  seats  where  the  elders  of  the 
town  or  village  and  the  ruler  of  the  synagogue  sat.  At  the 
opposite  end  was  the  gallery  for  women. 

St.  Luke  has  given  us  a  typical  picture  of  Jesus  preaching 
in  a  synagogue.^  Jesus  entered,  he  tells  us,  on  the  Sabbath 
day  into  the  synagogue  as  He  was  accustomed.  When  the 
Prayers,  the  Shema,  and  the  Blessings  were  finished,  came 
the  reading  of  the  Scripture.  It  would  be  the  custom  to 
call  upon  members  of  the  congregation  present  to  take 
part  in  the  reading,  and  in  particular  any  well-known  Rabbi 
or  teacher  who  was  present  would  be  asked  to  read  and 
interpret.  "They  gave  unto  him  the  book  of  Isaiah  the 
prophet,  and  he  stood  up  to  read.  When  He  had  opened 
the  book  He  found  the  place  that  is  written.  The  Spirit 
of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  that  he  hath  anointed 
me  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  poor,  and  to  preach  deliver- 
ance to  the  captives,  and  to  the  blind  sight,  to  assure  the 

1  Lk.  ix.  58.  2  Lk.  iv.  16-30. 


178  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

contrite  of  deliverance,  and  to  preach  the  acceptable  year 
of  the  Lord.  And  he  rolled  up  the  book,  and  gave  it  to 
the  minister,  and  sat  down."  All  eyes,  we  are  told,  were 
turned  on  Him,  and  He  proceeded  to  explain  how  these 
words  were  even  then  being  fulfilled.  The  selection  of  the 
passage  is  significant  because  it  informs  us  that  Jesus 
intended  to  identify  Himself  with  the  Divine  Servant  of 
the  prophet  Isaiah,  and  shows  us  in  what  way  He  felt  that 
the  Kingdom  of  God  was  at  hand.  They  wondered  at  the 
beauty  of  His  teaching,  but  in  this  case  the  spirit  of 
opposition  grew  up  and  questions  and  controversy  (as  often 
elsewhere)  followed  the  address. 

The  result  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus  and  of  the  spiritual 
fervour  that  He  displayed  was  widespread  fame.  Wherever 
He  went  crowds  flocked  to  hear  him.  People  came  to  Him 
from  all  sides.  When  He  was  in  a  house  they  crowded 
round  the  door,  so  that  no  one  could  get  in  or  out.  They 
prevented  Him  from  eating  by  their  importunities.  In 
order  that  He  might  have  a  means  of  escape  from  them, 
His  disciples  provided  a  small  boat  to  be  ready  in  case  of 
need,  and  He  used  it  to  address  them.^  Often  He  retires 
for  prayer  and  solitude.  But  always  His  fame  seemed  to 
increase,  and  people  came  from  many  distant  parts  to  hear 
Him.  They  came  not  only  from  Galilee,  but  from  Judaea 
and  Jerusalem,  from  the  country  beyond  Jordan,  and  even 
from  the  heathen  cities  of  Tyre  and  Sidon. 

II 

On  what  did  the  influence  of  Jesus  depend?  What  were 
the  characteristics  which  caused  His  fame?  It  was,  in  the 
first  place.  His  teaching.  Of  the  burden  of  His  message 
we  shall  speak  shortly;  we  shall  consider  now  its  external 
characteristics.  The  most  fundamental  point  might  be 
summed  up  in  one  word,  "authority."  "They  were 
astonished  at  His  teaching:  for  He  taught  them  as  having 
authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes.  It  was  a  new  teaching."^ 
No  doubt  there  was  a  dignity  and  charm  of  manner  which 
contributed  to  this  authority.    There  was,  too,  a  distinction 

1  Mk.  iii.  9.  2  Mk.  i.  27. 


THE  AUTHORITY  OF  JESUS  179 

and  originality  of  form  singularly  attractive.  The  teaching 
of  Jesus  is  preserved  to  us,  sometimes  in  short,  sharp, 
pregnant,  almost  epigrammatic  sayings,  sometimes  in  fuller 
parables.  It  is  vivid  and  picturesque.  It  expresses  its 
meaning  by  simple  homely  metaphors  which  would  strike 
the  attention,  would  be  easily  remembered,  and  would 
appeal  to  an  audience  which  was  intelhgent  but  little 
educated. 

But  the  signs  of  authority  are  something  deeper  than 
this.  Turn  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  Usten  to  the 
words  of  the  Beatitudes.  Who  is  this  who,  with  such  a 
note  of  calm  authority,  lays  down  the  conditions  of  in- 
heriting the  Kingdom  of  Heaven?  or  of  being  called  sons 
of  God?  or  who  can  make  a  promise  that  men  shall  see 
God?  Who  is  He  who  would  be  so  bold  as  to  say  that  He 
had  not  come  to  destroy  the  Law,  but  to  fulfil  it.  The 
commandments  had  been  given  from  Sinai,  inscribed  by 
the  finger  of  God  on  the  two  tables  of  stone;  who  was  this 
who  said,  "Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  Moses  of  old 
time,  ^  but  I  say  unto  you  .  .  ."?  Here  were  claims  very 
different  from  any  which  scribe  or  prophet  had  made;  what 
wonder  if  people  were  astonished  and  impressed  and  at- 
tracted by  His  teaching,  "for  He  taught  them  as  one  having 
authority,  and  not  as  the  scribes." 

But  it  soon  became  clear  that  there  were  other  unusual 
characteristics.  There  was  no  class  of  men  more  disliked 
than  those  who  farmed  the  taxes  of  the  country  which  were 
paid  to  a  foreign  Government.  Their  occupation  was  not 
only  one  exceedingly  offensive  in  itself,  but  inconsistent 
with  the  stricter  religious  sense  of  the  people.  Then,  again, 
to  a  person  who  professed  to  be  at  all  a  religious  man,  what 
could  be  more  repulsive  than  a  Jew  who  had  adopted  Greek 
ways,  associated  with  Greeks  at  their  meals,  showed  no 
scruples  in  the  matter  of  food,  and  was  in  many  ways  faith- 
less to  ancestral  traditions?  It  might  be  necessary  for  a 
business  man  to  have  dealings  with  the  foreigner,  but  there 
was  no  excuse  for  anyone  whose  profession  was  religion. 
Capernaum  was  a  place  where  both  these  classes  of  people  — 
publicans  and  sinners  —  would  no  doubt  be  found.     One  of 

1  Mt.  V.  17/. 

13 


i8o  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

the  great  roads  from  the  sea-coast  to  the  interior  came  over 
the  hills  to  the  plain  of  Gennesareth,  and  thence  ran  north- 
wards skirting  the  lake.  The  customs  dues  on  this  road 
belonged  to  the  Empire,  and  here  there  would  be  a  toll- 
house. It  was  something  strange  that  it  should  be  one  of 
the  tax-gatherers  sitting  at  the  receipt  of  custom  that 
accepted  the  call  to  join  the  Master  and  become  His  disciple; 
it  was  still  more  strange  that  He  should  be  seen  sitting  at 
meat  in  Levi's  house  with  a  company  of  tax-gatherers  and 
of  lax  Jews,  and  even  possibly  of  Greeks.  And  it  was 
something  very  new  that  He  said:  "They  that  are  whole 
have  no  need  of  a  physician,  but  they  that  are  sick: 
I  am  not  come  to  call  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to 
repentence."^ 

And  it  was  soon  found  that  there  were  many  others, 
whom  the  conventional  religion  of  the  day  left  on  one  side, 
for  whom  the  new  Teacher  cared.  He  was  sitting  at  meat 
in  a  Pharisee's  house,  and  a  woman  who  was  a  professional 
harlot  came  in  and  began  to  wash  His  feet  with  her  tears, 
and  to  wipe  them  with  her  hair,  and  kissed  His  feet,  and 
anointed  them  with  ointment;  for  He  was  weary  and  travel- 
stained.  No  wonder  people  were  shocked.  No  wonder 
His  host  was  astonished  when  He  was  compared  dis- 
paragingly with  the  woman:  "Simon,  I  entered  into  thy 
house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for  my  feet:  but  she  hath 
wetted  my  feet  with  her  tears,  and  wiped  them  with  her 
hair.  Thou  gavest  me  no  kiss:  but  she  since  the  time  I 
came  in,  hath  not  ceased  to  kiss  my  feet.  My  head  with 
oil  thou  didst  not  anoint;  but  she  hath  anointed  my  feet 
with  ointment."  How  great,  too,  must  have  been  the 
astonishment  when  He  went  on:  "Her  sins  which  are 
many  are  forgiven;  for  she  loved  much,"  and  when  He 
turned  to  the  woman  and  said,  "Thy  sins  are  forgiven; 
thy  faith  has  saved  thee;  go  in  peace."  Here  was  a  new 
pity  and  a  new  authority.  "Who  is  this  that  even  for- 
giveth  sins?"^ 

His  teaching,  indeed,  might  be  summed  up  in  the  words: 

^  Mk.  ii.  13-17. 

^  Lc.  vii.  36-50.  St.  Luke  derived  this  story,  not  from  St.  Mark,  but 
from  oral  traditions  or  his  special  source.     What  relation  it  bears  to  the 


THE   CASTING  OUT  OF  DEVILS 


i»i 


"The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which 
was  lost."  It  was  not  merely  that  He  taught  this.  He 
carried  it  out  in  action.  He  lived  Himself  as  a  poor  man, 
and  those  who  were  associated  with  Him,  even  if  they  had 
wealth,  did  the  same.  He  spoke  always  of  the  dangers  of 
riches  and  the  blessings  of  poverty.  Towards  the  poor, 
the  outcast,  and  the  sinners  he  exhibited  neither  scorn 
nor  repulsion.  He  was  always  ready  to  help  the  afflicted, 
to  show  compassion  to  the  suffering,  and  to  the  sinner  that 
turned  to  Him  there  was  forgiveness.  "Come  unto  Me, 
all  ye  that  labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you 
rest."^  Is  it  wonderful  that  the  outcast  and  the  suffering 
came  to  Him,  and  that  a  company  of  women,  some  of  whom 
had  been  saved  by  His  sympathy  from  a  life  of  shame  and 
suffering,  should  have  become  his  attendants,  and  have 
shown  their  love  and  gratitude  by  ministering  to  Him? 
Mary  of  Magdala  has  come  to  typify  this  spirit  of  the 
Gospel. 

Ill 

It  seems  to  have  been  the  almost .  universal  beHef  of 
the  human  race  in  primitive  times  that  human  infirmities 
were  to  be  ascribed  to  the  operation  of  evil  spirits,  and  this 
in  relation  to  bodily  as  well  as  mental  diseases.  The  right 
method,  therefore,  of  dealing  with  sickness  and  of  working 
cures  was  by  some  form  of  exorcism  by  which  the  evil  spirit 
might  be  controlled  and  vanquished.  Even  when  medical 
knowledge  had  advanced  so  far  that  as  regards  bodily 
infirmities  this  belief  had  grown  weaker,  or  rather  men  were 
left  in  a  somewhat  confused  state  of  mind  in  which  the  two 
theories  were  allowed  to  exist  side  by  side,  so  that  heahng 
might  be  performed  partly  by  the  art  of  the  physician  and 
partly  by  the  power  of  the  exorcist,  there  would  still  be 
few  who  would  doubt  that  most  of  the  diseases  which  we 
describe  as  nervous,  all  feeble-mindedness,  lunacy,  epilepsy, 
and  madness  were  the  direct  result  of  the  work  of  evil 
spirits. 

story  contained  in  St.  Mark,  and  referred  by  St.  John  to  Mary  the  sister 
of  Martha,  must  be  doubtful. 

1  Mt.  xi.  28.     . 


i82  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

So  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  our  Lord  it  was  almost 
universally  believed  that  behind  the  material  world,  and 
exercising  great  influence  both  over  it  and  over  mankind, 
was  a  powerful  army  of  spiritual  beings,  some  good  and 
some  evil.  The  evil  spirits  were  largely  responsible  for  the 
prevalence  of  sin  and  sorrow  and  suffering.  They  were 
looked  upon  as  a  disciplined  army  under  a  leader  who  was 
called  Satan,  or  Beelzebub,  or  by  some  other  name,  and 
there  were  many  to  be  found  everywhere  who  suffered  from 
their  machinations.  Many  of  these  sufferers  no  doubt  had 
sinned,  and  it  was  generally  believed  that  this  demoniacal 
possession  was  something  for  which  people  were  themselves 
to  blame.  We  need  not  now  discuss  the  various  theories 
which  might  be  needed  to  reconcile  the  existence  of  these 
evil  powers  with  the  supremacy  of  a  just  and  good  God. 
They  were  looked  upon  as  a  kingdom  of  evil  over  against 
and  in  conflict  with  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  it  would 
inevitably  be  thought  that  the  triumph  of  divine  rule  would 
mean  the  suppression  of  the  power  of  these  evil  spirits 
and  consequently  the  cure  of  those  who  suffered.  It  was 
naturally  believed  that  it  was  one  of  the  functions  of  religion 
to  promote  the  cure  of  such  afflictions,  and  many  elaborate 
forms  of  exorcism  had  become  associated  with  religious  life. 

It  was  also  the  inevitable  result  of  the  prevalence  of 
these  theories  that  those  who  were  "possessed"  should 
themselves  be  influenced  by  such  views,  and  in  their  strange 
mental  condition,  often  such  as  would  be  described  now 
as  that  of  possessing  a  double  personality,  should  firmly 
beheve  that  there  were  evil  spirits  dwelling  in  them.  They 
would  be  conscious  of  something  which  impeded  the  action 
of  their  will,  and  would  beheve  that  it  was  the  work  of  the 
spirit  in  them,  or  they  would  think  that  they  were  them- 
selves the  evil  spirit.  In  the  days  of  trials  for  witchcraft 
in  England,  the  unfortunate  victims  of  superstition  were 
often  firmly  convinced  that  they  had  the  powers  ascribed 
to  them,  that  they  were  witches;  and  they  attempted  to 
exercise  these  powers  that  they  believed  themselves  to 
possess. 

It  was  also  an  old  behef  that  those  who  were  possessed, 
whether,  as  was  sometimes  held,  by  a  god  or  some  other 


THE  PHENOMENA  OF  POSSESSION  183 

beneficent  being,  or  by  an  evil  spirit,  had  a  knowledge 
which  was  more  than  human.  There  are  indeed  many 
phenomena  which  might  seem  to  justify  such  a  belief. 
There  is  often  a  very  near  kinship  between  the  mind  of 
some  types  of  genius  when  it  is  over-excited  and  the  mind 
of  a  madman.  The  half-witted  will  often  say  openly  what 
the  sane  man  with  all  the  inhibitions  which  prudence  and 
common  sense  create,  will  hesitate  to  reveal  or  express.  The 
phenomena,  in  fact,  as  presented  in  the  Gospels  were 
exactly  what  might  be  expected.  There  we  find  those  who 
were  possessed  with  devils  —  that  is,  the  half-witted  and 
the  insane  —  ready  to  express  the  half -felt  intuitions  of 
the  people,  showing  their  resentment  and  respect  before  a 
power  which  seemed  to  force  their  will,  clearly  identifying 
themselves  with  the  spirits  which  were  supposed  to  dwell 
in  them,  and  becoming  violent  when  they  were  controlled. 

It  has  sometimes  been  thought  that  the  circumstances 
of  the  time  had  created  an  especial  outbreak  of  this  evil. 
There  is  no  need  to  think  this.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
the  phenomenon  is  mentioned  much  more  frequently  in  the 
New  Testament  than  in  the  Old,  but  that  really  only  implies 
a  changed  point  of  view.  At  the  present  day  in  England 
the  workhouse,  the  asylum,  and  the  infirmary  provide 
homes  for  all  such  cases,  but  in  old  days  the  village  idiot 
was  a  well-known  institution;  and  if,  as  in  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  all  those  who  are  now  cared  for  and  protected  were 
left  to  wander  about,  often  tormented  and  persecuted, 
always  neglected,  with  no  one  to  control  them,  finding 
homes  in  soHtary  places  or  tombs  or  caves,  the  misery 
described  in  the  Gospels  would  be  reproduced. 

To  cast  out  devils,  to  cure  those  possessed  of  evil  spirits, 
is  represented  as  the  work  of  our  Lord  more  constantly 
than  any  other  miraculous  activity.  So  certainly  was  His 
power  recognized  that  His  Pharisaic  opponents  though  it 
necessary  to  ascribe  His  cures  to  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of 
the  devils.  We  are  particularly  told  how,  on  His  first 
journey  through  the  villages  of  Galilee,  He  preached  and 
cast  out  devils.^  When  He  sent  out  the  Twelve  He  gave 
them  authority  over  unclean  spirits.^    The  seventy,  St.  Luke 

^  Mk.  i.  39.  '^  Mk.  vi.  7. 


i84  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

tells  us,  returned  with  joy,  saying,  "Lord,  even  the  devils 
are  subject  unto  us  in  thy  name."  Jesus  answered,  "I 
beheld  Satan  falling  as  lightning  from  heaven."  ^  The 
power  over  unclean  spirits  was  a  sign  of  victory  over  the 
kingdom  of  evil. 

The  characteristics  of  this  evil  as  they  are  recorded  were 
sometimes  violent  madness  and  struggles  exhibiting  great 
strength.  The  unfortunate  victim  falls  into  the  fire  or  the 
water;  he  foams  at  the  mouth,  he  grinds  his  teeth,  he  has 
convulsions.  Sometimes  it  is  uncontrolled  excitement, 
sometimes  such  afflictions  as  blindness,  deafness,  dumbness, 
diseases  which,  it  may  be  noted,  are  often  of  purely  nervous 
origin.  Sometimes  the  lines  between  illness  and  possession 
are  much  confused  —  a  confusion  quite  in  accordance  with 
popular  superstition. 

What  was  particularly  recorded  and  caused  so  much 
astonishment  was  the  authority  that  Jesus  exercised  over 
these  spirits.  He  heals  by  His  word,  He  particularly  tells 
us  that  it  is  by  the  Spirit  or  finger  of  God  that  He  has  this 
power. ^  He  rebukes  the  spirits,  they  obey  His  express 
command.  In  His  name  His  disciples  cast  out  devils. 
When  they  fail  it  is  through  want  of  faith. 

It  is  also  noticed  how  the  evil  spirits  recognize  our  Lord's 
divine  power.  "I  know  thee  who  thou  art,  the  Holy  One 
of  Israel."^  "What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  Jesus,  thou 
Son  of  the  Most  High  God?  I  adjure  thee  by  God,  torment 
me  not."^  This  violent  recognition  of  Him  as  the  Messiah 
might  have  been  very  dangerous  to  Him  during  the  Galilaean 
ministry  (as  will  become  apparent),  and  Jesus,  we  are 
particularly  told,  suffered  not  the  devils  to  speak  because 
they  knew  Him.  The  meaning  which  was  given  to  posses- 
sion may  be  further  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  Jesus 
Himself  was  looked  upon  as  mad  and  in  the  power  of  the 
devil.  John  the  Baptist  was  said  to  have  had  a  devil. 
In  St.  John's  Gospel  our  Lord  is  said  to  be  possessed  of  a 
devil  because  He  says  they  are  seeking  to  kill  Him.  "Thou 
art  a  Samaritan,  and  hast  a  devil."  "He  hath  a  devil  and 
is  mad." 

1  Lk.  X.  17,  18.  "  Lk.  xi.  20;  Mt.  xii.  28. 

3  Mk.  i.  24.  «Mk.  V.  7. 


THE  ATTITUDE   OF   OUR  LORD  185 

I  do  not  think  that  any  distinction  can  be  made  between 
the  characteristics  of  possession  and  the  theories  held  about 
it  as  they  are  presented  to  us  in  the  New  Testament  and 
the  widespread  behefs  of  the  time.  Our  Lord's  language 
is  completely  in  accordance  with  the  religious  and  scientific 
ideas  of  His  contemporaries.  He  acts  recognizing  fully 
what  both  the  onlookers  and  those  whom  He  cured  would 
think.  It  is  obvious  that  nothing  else  would  have  been 
possible  on  His  part.  Let  us  ask  of  those  who  feel  troubled 
by  this,  what  particular  theory  our  Lord  should  have 
substituted  for  that  current  in  His  time.  Do  they  think 
that  He  ought  to  have  talked  in  the  scientific  and  medical 
language  of  the  present  day?  It  is  obvious  that  to  have 
done  so  would  have  conveyed  no  meaning  to  anyone  who 
heard  Him,  deprived  Him  of  power  and  influence,  made 
His  actions  vain  and  ineffectual.  The  one  condition  of 
being  able  to  exercise  His  ministry  as  a  man  teaching  men 
was  that  He  should  do  it  in  accordance  with  the  thought 
and  ideas  of  the  day.  What  theological  theory  is  implied 
by  this  fact  is  a  matter  of  future  enquiry.  We  are  not 
concerned  at  the  present  time  with  that  problem.  What 
is  necessary  to  point  out  is  that  a  religious  teacher  who  in 
the  first  century  of  the  Christian  era  adopted  the  scientific 
language  and  ideas  of  the  present  day  would  have  talked 
in  a  language  utterly  incomprehensible  to  the  people. 

But  further  than  that,  what  justification  have  we  for 
thinking  that  the  particular  ideas  that  we  have  at  present 
are  in  any  absolute  sense  true  or  final?  We  may  perhaps, 
with  some  reason,  flatter  ourselves  that  they  represent 
a  considerable  scientific  advance,  but  the  science  of  psychol- 
ogy which  deals  with  them  is  as  yet  only  in  its  infancy. 
We  are  certain  that  the  opinions  held  a  hundred  years  ago 
are  largely  erroneous,  are  we  quite  certain  that  that  will 
not  be  the  opinion  held  a  hundred  years  hence  of  what 
we  think  now?  The  only  suggestion  that  from  this  point 
of  view  would  be  intelligible  would  be  that  our  Lord  should 
have  given  an  absolutely  true  and  final  account  of  the  real 
nature  of  mental  disorders,  and  thus  should  have  saved 
the  human  race  from  the  necessity  of  scientific  investigation 
and  discovery,  so  that  we  should  never  have  had  to  find 


i86  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

out  anything  for  ourselves.  I  think  that  we  shall  all 
recognize  how  entirely  inconsistent  with  all  His  methods 
and  purposes  this  would  have  been.  Our  Lord's  purpose 
was  to  teach  mankind  religion  and  not  science.  He  did 
not  come  to  do  away  with  the  necessity  of  human  effort. 
He  came  to  teach  them  to  fulfil  His  will  and  thus  hve  a  Ufe 
in  which  they  might  learn  about  God's  work.  So  in  every 
direction  His  science  was  the  science  of  His  own  time,  and 
not  least  in  dealing  with  the  phenomenon  of  possession. 

In  order  to  bring  help  and  relief  to  the  sufferings  of  His 
own  time,  Jesus  spoke  and  worked  in  the  way  that  har- 
monized with  men's  thoughts.  That  does  not  mean  that 
their  thoughts  were  true  thoughts,  or  that  His  thoughts 
were  not  true.  It  means  that  He  gave  His  message  in  the 
language  and  thought  of  the  day.  His  power  over  these 
poor  sufferers  was  very  really  the  power  of  His  Spirit 
exercised  by  His  influence  on  their  spirits.  There  are  many 
phenomena  at  the  present  day  which  may  afford  us  some 
analogy  to  His  actions.  It  is  quite  certain  that  many  men 
can  exercise  healing  power  over  those  afflicted  with  nervous 
diseases,  and  the  experiences  and  investigations  of  the  war 
have  added  much  to  our  power  and  knowledge.  It  is 
equally  true  that  a  man's  spiritual  nature  has  much  to  do 
with  his  mental  state.  A  sound,  healthy  religious  influence 
will  do  much  to  create  a  state  of  mental  sanity  and  to  nerve 
a  man  to  resist  unhealthy  mental  tendencies.  All  these 
analogies  help  us  to  the  comprehension  of  our  Lord's  work, 
and  have  enabled  many  to  accept,  perhaps  in  a  somewhat 
modified  form,  the  truths  of  the  Gospel  narrative  who  could 
not  otherwise  have  done  so.  But  these  analogies  must  not 
bhnd  us  to  the  differences.  There  was  a  power  and  au- 
thority about  our  Lord's  actions  which  was  unparalleled 
then  as  it  is  unparalleled  now.  He  exercised  a  spiritual  au- 
thority which  was  unique. 

IV 

But  it  was  not  only  the  mentally  afflicted  that  our  Lord 
healed,  He  exercised  the  same  power  over  bodily  suffering. 
*'He  healed  many  that  were  sick  with  various  diseases."  If 
not  perhaps  to  the  same  extent  as  mental  cures,  yet  the  heal- 


HEALING  THE  SICK  187 

ing  of  bodily  illness  is  represented  by  all  our  authorities  as 
part  of  His  ministerial  work.  It  is  narrated  that  while 
John  the  Baptist  was  lying  in  prison  before  his  execution, 
he  heard  of  the  Galilaean  ministry  of  Jesus.  He  was  still 
in  doubt.  Jesus  was  certainly  a  great  prophet,  but  He 
was  hardly  the  Messiah  as  John  had  imagined  Him.  He 
did  not  do  at  all  the  things  that  people  demanded.  Was 
He  the  Messiah  Himself,  or  was  He  only  a  great  forerunner? 
So  he  sent  his  disciples  to  enquire.  The  answer  of  our 
Lord  was  characteristic.  He  did  not  openly  desire  even 
then  to  claim  to  be  the  Messiah.  He  did  not  depart  from 
His  normal  attitude  of  reserve.  We  shall  discuss,  later  on, 
the  reason  for  this.  But  He  bid  the  messengers  tell  John 
what  they  had  heard  and  seen  and  leave  him  to  draw  the 
inference.  "Go  your  way  and  tell  John  the  things  which 
ye  do  hear  and  see:  the  blind  receive  their  sight,  and  the 
lame  walk,  the  lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear,  and 
the  dead  are  raised  up,  and  the  poor  have  good  tidings 
preached  to  them.  And  blessed  is  he,  whosoever  shall  not 
be  offended  in  me."^ 

These  words  are  significant.  They  are  significant  in  their 
appeal  to  Scripture.  Our  Lord  claims  to  be  the  complete 
fulfilment  of  the  old  dispensation.  They  are  significant 
in  the  fact  that  they  recognize  the  difficulties  that  many 
would  have  in  accepting  a  Messiah  such  as  He  was.  They 
are  remarkable  as  being  one  of  the  rare  occasions  when 
our  Lord  is  definitely  represented  as  appeahng  to  His 
miracles.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the  passage  is  to  be 
taken  throughout  in  a  spiritual  sense,  that  it  is  the  spiritu- 
ally blind,  the  spiritually  deaf,  the  spiritual  lepers,  the  spirit- 
ually dead  that  are  referred  to.  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
this  is  the  right  interpretation,  for  the  quotation  from  the 
Old  Testament  has  been  modified  so  as  to  introduce  the 
reference  to  the  miraculous.  The  passage  comes  from  one  of 
the  earliest  sources  of  the  Gospel  narrative,  and  implies 
that  the  spiritual  power  exercised  by  Jesus  for  the  relief  of 
human    suffering   was   with    the   preaching   of    the    Gospel 

^  Mt.  xi.  2-6;  Lk.  vii.  19-23.  The  passage  clearly  comes  from  The 
Discourses. 


i88  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

message  to  be  taken  as  a  sign  that  the  days  of  the  Messiah 
had  come,  even  if  there  was  so  little  that  corresponded  to 
the  conventional  expectation. 

If  we  examine  the  narratives  of  our  Lord's  life  as  we 
possess  them,  we  shall  see  that  they  not  only  narrate  stories 
of  miracles,  but  also  imply  as  part  of  the  structure  of  the 
narrative  and  of  the  characteristics  of  the  ministry  that 
He  possessed  miraculous  powers.  Jesus  had  the  reputation 
of  working  miracles.  The  centurion  of  Capernaum  comes 
to  Him  because  he  has  heard  of  these  miracles.^  The 
people  flock  round  Him  as  He  enters  into  a  boat:  "for  He 
had  healed  many:  insomuch  that  as  many  as  had  plagues 
pressed  upon  Him,  that  they  might  touch  Him."^  When 
He  preaches  in  the  synagogue  at  Nazareth,  it  is  not  only 
His  wisdom,  but  His  reputation  for  miracles  which  causes 
comment:  "What  is  the  wisdom  that  is  given  unto  this 
man,  and  what  mean  these  mighty  works  wrought  by  his 
hands?"  ^  When  they  come  to  the  land  of  Gennesaret, 
"straightway  the  people  knew  him  and  ran  round  about 
the  whole  district,  and  began  to  carry  about  on  their  beds 
those  that  were  sick,  when  they  heard  where  he  was.  And 
wheresoever  he  entered,  into  villages,  or  into  cities,  or  into 
the  country,  they  laid  the  sick  in  the  market  places  and 
besought  him  that  they  might  touch  if  it  were  but  the 
border  of  his  garment:  and  as  many  as  touched  him  were 
made  whole."  ^ 

The  narratives  of  miracles  may  be  found  in  all  the  Gospels 
and  in  all  the  various  sources.  They  are  told,  like  other 
Gospel  stories,  in  a  manner  that  wins  assent,  and  if  we 
were  not  troubled  by  doubts  about  the  possibility  of  the 
miraculous  we  should  have  no  doubt  about  their  authen- 
ticity. It  will  be  most  profitable  if  we  examine  some  of 
the  phenomena  which  are  presented  by  these  stories. 

The  condition  of  a  miracle  was  faith.  In  the  story  of 
the  paralytic  Jesus  commends  the  faith  that  urged  the  men 
to  make  such  efforts  to  bring  the  sick  man  into  His  presence: 
"And  Jesus  seeing  their  faith  saith  unto   the  sick  of  the 

^  Mt.  viii.  S-io;    Lc.  vii.  i-io,  from  The  Discourses. 

2  Mk.  iii.  lo.  3  yi-^    yj_  2.  *  yi^    yj^  54-56. 


NATURE  OF   MIRACLES  189 

palsy,  Son,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."^  To  the  centurion 
of  Capernaum  He  said:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  have 
not  found  so  great  faith,  no,  not  in  Israel.  ...  Go  thy 
way;  as  thou  hast  believed  so  be  it  done  unto  thee."^  To 
the  woman  with  a  bloody  flux:  "Daughter,  thy  faith  hath 
made  thee  whole." ^  "All  things  are  possible  to  him  that 
believeth."  "Have  faith  in  God;  verily  I  say  unto  you. 
Whosoever  shall  say  unto  this  mountain.  Be  thou  taken 
up  and  cast  into  the  sea;  and  shall  not  doubt  in  his  heart, 
but  shall  believe  that  what  he  saith  cometh  to  pass;  he 
shall  have  it,"^  And  so  the  absence  of  faith  prevents 
miracles  being  worked.  At  Nazareth  we  are  told:  "He 
could  there  do  no  mighty  work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands 
upon  a  few  sick  folk  and  healed  them.  And  he  marvelled 
because  of  their  unbelief."^  A  failure  of  His  disciples  to 
cure  a  demoniac  is  ascribed  to  the  same  cause:  "And  I 
spake  to  thy  disciples  that  they  should  cast  it  out:  and  they 
were  not  able.  And  he  answereth  them  and  saith,  O  faith- 
less generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with  you?  How  long 
shall  I  bear  with  you?"^ 

To  most  persons,  I  venture  to  think,  these  statements  of 
failure  will  be  strong  evidence  of  the  truth  of  the  narratives. 
If  there  had  been  any  desire  to  conceal  what  might  seem 
to  be  inconsistent  with  what  was  claimed  for  Jesus,  they 
would  probably  have  been  omitted.  Had  the  other  stories 
been  moulded  and  fashioned,  as  has  been  suggested,  to 
prove  the  theories  of  the  authors,  it  is  hardly  likely  that 
these  incidents  would  not  have  suffered  in  the  same  way. 
They  help  to  give  the  impression  which  the  whole  style  of 
the  narratives  supports,  that  we  are  reading  truthful  stories 
of  things  as  they  happened.  Moreover,  the  absence  of 
anything  mechanical  about  the  healing  power  exercised  by 
Jesus  harmonizes  with  all  that  we  learn  in  other  ways  about 
God's  dealings  with  men.  Jesus  is  not  a  magician  and 
wonder  worker.  His  power  is  spiritual  and  requires  for 
its  effectiveness  response.     He  has  a  deep  insight  into  all 

1  Mk.  ii.  s.  2  Mt.  viii.  lo,  13.  ^  Mk.  v.  34- 

*  Mk.  xi.  23;  Mt.  xvii.  20,  xxi.  21;  Lk.  xvii.  6.  This  saying  was 
reported  in  more  than  one  source. 

^  Mk.  vi.  5.  ^  Mk.  ix.  18,  19. 


T90  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

who  come  to  Him.  He  knows  the  reahty  of  their  spiritual 
nature,  and  His  work  shows  liow  the  spiritual  can  influence 
and  triumph  over  the  material. 

This  power  of  healing  was  an  evidence  of  our  Lord's 
spiritual  authority,  and  He  Himself,  when  needs  be,  appeals 
to  it.  When  the  scribes  object  to  His  forgiving  sins.  He 
asks  "whether  it  is  easier  to  say  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
Thy  sins  are  forgiven;  or  to  say,  Arise,  and  take  up  thy  bed, 
and  walk?  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man 
hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (he  saith  to  the  sick 
of  the  palsy),  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and  go  into  thy 
house."  ^  But  although  on  occasions  He  may  appeal  to  His 
miracles,  His  general  attitude  is  that  of  reluctance  to  lay 
stress  on  them,  and  even  often  to  perform  them.  He  avoids 
the  multitude.  He  goes  apart  into  a  desert  place  to  pray. 
He  crosses  over  to  the  other  side  to  escape  from  the  people 
that  crowded  Him.  He  heals  the  sick  because  He  has 
compassion  on  them,  and  not  to  exalt  His  own  reputa- 
tion. So  He  is  anxious  that  those  who  are  healed  shall  not 
pubHsh  His  fame  abroad.  To  the  leper  He  says:  "See 
thou  say  nothing  to  anyone."  When  He  raises  up  the 
daughter  of  Jairus,  He  charges  him  that  no  man  should 
know  this.  Yet  this  is  not  always  His  action.  To  the 
demoniac  (the  incident,  it  must  be  noted,  did  not  occur  in 
Jewish  territory)  He  says,  "Go  to  thy  house  unto  thy 
friends,  and  tell  them  how  great  things  the  Lord  hath  done 
for  thee,  and  how  he  had  mercy  on  thee."^ 

The  reasons  for  the  reserve  and  economy  that  our  Lord 
exercised  about  miracles  were  more  than  one.  He  did  not 
come  as  a  wonder  worker,  but  as  a  teacher.  If  the  people 
flocked  round  Him  for  no  other  reason  than  for  the  miracles 
that  He  did.  His  whole  purpose  would  have  been  lost.  The 
miracles  would  obscure  the  teaching.  Nor  would  He  ever 
work  anything  as  a  sign.  When  the  Pharisees  demanded  a 
sign  —  that  is,  some  conspicuous  abnormal  action  so  per- 
formed that  it  might  be  held  to  be  a  certain  proof  of  His 
claims  —  He  refused.  It  is  not  so  that  He  will  win  men's 
hearts.     There  is  to  be  no  mechanical  proof.     But  the  mira- 

1  Mk.  ii.  9,  lo.  2  Mk.  V.  19. 


J^f  MIRACLES   AND   THE   GOSPEL  191 

cles  were  all  the  same  an  integral  and  essential  part  of  His 
ministry.  When  Peter,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  sums  up 
the  characteristics  of  our  Lord's  work,  he  says  that  He  went 
about  doing  good.^  The  miracles,  in  fact,  were  the  transla- 
tion of  His  Gospel  into  life.  St.  Matthew,  when  he  repeats 
St.  Mark's  statement  about  the  miracles  which  Jesus  had 
wrought  at  Capernaum,  adds  the  comment:  "That  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  Isaiah  the  prophet,  saying, 
Himself  took  our  infirmities  and  bare  our  diseases."^  It 
was  part  of  His  general  beneficent  work  for  man.  That  is 
why  spiritual  and  physical  activity  is  so  closely  bound 
together.  He  rescues  men  both  from  the  burden  of  their 
sins  and  the  burden  of  their  diseases.  That  was  the  mean- 
ing of  the  miracles  and  the  reason  for  their  value  as 
supports  of  His  claims.  They  harmonized  with  His  spiritual 
mission. 

And  thus  they  reveal  how  Christianity  should  act  towards 
human  want  and  misery.  The  purpose  of  Christianity  was 
not  directly  to  satisfy  the  material  wants  of  mankind,  or 
even  primarily  to  diminish  material  suffering.  Its  message 
was  spiritual,  to  make  us  be  what  we  should  be,  to  teach 
us  to  fulfil  the  Divine  Will.  But  it  is  the  Divine  Will 
that  we  should  help  one  another,  and  therefore  the  in- 
exdtable  result  of  the  Christian  message  is  to  impel  men 
to  do  all  they  can  to  help  and  succour  their  fellow-men.  So 
it  has  always  brought  with  it  the  hospital  and  the  nurse 
and  the  sister  of  mercy.  But  hospitals  and  nurses  are  not 
Christianity,  and  if  we  once  begin  to  think  so  the  emotions 
which  create  them  will  begin  to  fail.  They  are  the  inevitable 
accompaniment  of  true  Christianity.  Its  aim  is  to  make 
us  fashion  our  lives  according  to  the  pattern  God  has  given 
us.  Just  in  the  same  way  to  work  miracles  was  not  the 
work  of  Christ.  The  work  of  Christ  was  to  teach  mankind 
and  to  save  men  from  their  sins,  but  because  the  essence 
and  motive  of  the  Gospels  is  love,  therefore  it  was  by  works 
of  mercy  that  Jesus  revealed  to  mankind  His  spiritual 
power. 

And  this  will  help  us  to  understand  the  nature  of  miracles. 
The  attitude  of  scientific  men  has  to  a  large  extent  changed 

1  Acts  X.  38,  2  Mt.  viii.  17. 


192  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

in  certain  directions.  It  is  recognized  that  the  mind  has 
a  far  larger  influence  over  the  body  than  was  at  one  time 
realized.  It  is  also  recognized  that  the  power  of  suggestion 
exercised  by  one  mind  over  another  is  very  considerable, 
and  that  the  combined  power  of  two  minds  thus  working 
together  may  produce  real  bodily  cures.  It  is  recognized 
further  that  mental  conditions,  and  in  particular  religious 
emotions,  are  an  important  feature  in  the  control  of  health. 
As  a  result  of  all  these  new  points  of  view  the  attitude  of 
some  of  those  who  are  called  critics  towards  the  Gospel 
miracles  has  changed.  They  no  longer  maintain  that  the 
events  did  not  happen,  but  they  say  that  they  are  not 
miracles.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  easy  solution 
is  really  tenable.  The  phenomena  described  will  not  really 
come  within  these  particular  formulae,  and  the  position  of 
believing  just  so  much  as  the  fashionable  theories  of  the 
moment  allow  is  hardly  inteUigent.  We  are  still,  I  think, 
left  in  the  position  of  either  refusing  to  accept  what  appears 
to  be  quite  good  evidence,  or  of  accepting  phenomena  which 
are  inconsistent  with  ordinary  experience. 

The  miracles  of  our  Lord,  even  the  miracles  of  healing, 
really  present  something  which,  if  they  happened  in  any 
way  as  is  related,  are  different  from  any  phenomena  which 
are  within  ordinary  human  experience.  It  is  possible  to 
explain  them  away,  but  not  so  as  to  carry  complete  con- 
viction. Some  would  divide  them  into  two  classes,  and  call 
some  natural  and  some  unnatural.  The  difficulty  about 
that  is  that  our  acceptance  or  not,  or  our  partial  acceptance, 
depends  upon  the  particular  scientific  theory  in  vogue  at 
the  moment.  Now  the  great  mass  of  miracles  of  healing 
are  widely  accepted.  A  few  years  ago  they  were  not.  Another 
change  in  scientific  methods  might  make  new  theories  about 
miracles  possible.  Many  which  were  condemned  in  old  days 
are  now  accepted.  We  have,  indeed,  no  certainty  that  every 
miracle  recorded  in  the  Gospel  happened  as  is  described. 
But  the  moral  I  draw  is  that  the  evidence  for  miracles 
(not  every  miracle)  is  good,  and  that  to  attempt  to  deny 
them   on    a   priori   grounds    is    singularly  unscientific.^ 

*  On  miracles  I  would  refer  to  what  I  have  written  in  The  Miracles  of 
the  New  Testament  (London:    John  Murray,  1914),  where  the  literature  of 


THE  OPPOSITION  193 


If  we  try  to  sum  up  the  impression  created  by  the  Gali- 
laean  ministry  as  it  is  described  in  the  Gospels,  we  may 
say  that  it  presents  a  unique  exhibition  of  spiritual  power. 
It  is  shown  by  the  spiritual  character  of  our  Lord's  teaching, 
by  His  wonderful  personal  influence,  by  His  power  of 
healing  those  who  were  afflicted,  whether  in  their  minds  or 
bodies.  It  stirred  up  the  people  of  Galilee;  the  fame  of  it 
spread  throughout  the  neighbouring  countries;  it  made 
much  questioning  and  debate  as  to  who  this  Teacher,  so 
wonderful,  but  so  different  to  conventional  expectation, 
might  be,  and  it  roused,  as  might  be  expected,  the  inevitable 
opposition. 

It  was,  indeed,  hardly  to  be  expected  that  teaching  such 
as  that  of  Jesus  should  go  on  without  arousing  opposition, 
nor  that  these  great  popular  demonstrations  should  fail  to 
cause  anxiety  to  the  authorities.  We  have  now  to  recount 
the  steps  by  which  a  breach  gradually  grew  up  between 
Jesus  and  the  official  religion.  A  series  of  incidents  recorded 
by  St.  Mark  at  this  stage  in  the  narrative  are  clearly  de- 
signed to  point  out  to  us  this  situation,  and  their  evidence  is 
corroborated  by  other  incidents  recorded  elsewhere.  They 
give  us  a  quite  clear  presentation  of  the  points  of  difference, 
but  there  must  be  some  doubt  as  to  whether  they  are  the 
story  of  a  series  of  actual  events  which  followed  one  another 
in  the  manner  described,  and  give  us  a  consecutive  account 
of  the  development  of  the  quarrel,  or  whether  they  are 
typical  instances  collected  by  St.  Mark  from  different 
sources  and  arranged  as  they  are  without  regard  to  chrono- 
logical sequence.  For  the  purpose  of  our  narrative  it  does 
not  make  much  difference  which  is  the  case.  Even  if  the 
order  is  chronological,  they  cannot  give  us  a  connected 
history,  as  they  are  far  too  fragmentary. 

If  we  take  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  as  in  any  way  repre- 
senting our  Lord's  preaching,  it  is  obvious  that  it  must  have 

the  subject  is  fully  discussed.  I  would  add  here  the  definition  which  I 
have  suggested  of  a  miracle  (p.  33s):  "A  miracle  means  really  the  su- 
premacy of  the  spiritual  forces  of  the  world  to  an  extraordinarily  marked 
degree  over  the  mere  material." 


194  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

aroused  criticism  and  opposition.  There  were  throughout 
all  the  towns  and  villages  of  Galilee  scribes  who  were  the 
professional  teachers  of  the  law.  They  were  attached  to 
the  synagogues,  they  assisted  in  the  administration  of 
justice,  and  were  no  doubt  often  engaged  in  teaching.  Their 
tendency  would,  no  doubt,  as  professional  lawyers,  be 
towards  a  strict  and  uninspiring  insistence  on  the  legal 
elements  of  religion,  and  as  the  people  of  Galilee  tended  to 
show  a  somewhat  daring  laxity  in  their  views  they  would 
often  be  in  opposition  to  the  more  popular  forms  of  religion. 
Galilee,  we  must  remember,  had  a  bad  reputation  in 
Jerusalem.  The  majority  of  the  scribes  were  probably 
attached  to  the  party  of  the  Pharisees,  as  the  stricter  sect, 
and  we  have,  indeed,  a  special  reference  to  ''the  scribes  of 
the  Pharisees."'  With  the  scribes  would  be  associated  such 
local  members  as  there  were  of  the  party  of  the  Pharisees. 
It  may  be  doubted  whether  they  were  very  numerous.  But, 
clearly,  there  were  already  in  Galilee,  on  the  one  side,  a 
populace  which  would  be  very  ready  to  hear  teaching  like 
that  of  Jesus,  on  the  other  side  an  official  class  which 
would  resent  it.  Then,  as  the  Ministry  progressed,  as  the 
fame  of  it  became  wider,  Pharisees  and  others  would  come 
down  from  Jerusalem,  sent,  perhaps,  by  the  Sanhedrin 
to  report  on  and,  if  possible,  repress  this  dangerous 
movement. 

The  first  instance  that  is  given  us  of  the  beginnings  of 
criticism  is  at  the  healing  of  the  paralytic.  A  great  crowd 
had  assembled  in  and  about  the  house,  and  among  them 
were  some  scribes,  no  doubt  already  present  in  a  critical 
spirit.  The  purpose  of  the  assembly  was  to  listen  to  the 
teaching  of  Jesus.  When  the  sick  man  was  brought  in 
and  Jesus  said  to  him,  "Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,"  it  is 
not  wonderful  that  it  aroused  misgivings.  "Why  does 
this  man  speak  so?  He  is  speaking  blasphemy.  Who  can 
forgive  sins  but  God  only?"  The  criticism  was  not  un- 
reasonable. Jesus  was  making  claims  which  demanded 
acceptance  or  rejection.  An  attitude  of  toleration  was 
hardly  possible.^ 

1  Mk.  ii.  I-I2. 


THE   SABBATH  195 

It  is,  however,  often  the  smaller  things  which  are  more 
likely  to  cause  an  open  breach,  and  the  violation  by  a 
popular  religious  teacher  of  the  customs  of  rehgion  and  the 
rules  of  social  exclusiveness  was  just  what  would  create 
bitterness.  Not  only  did  Jesus  admit  a  member  of  the 
hated  publican  class  among  His  disciples,  but  He  was  quite 
willing  to  enter  his  house  and  to  sit  at  meat  with  a  mixed 
company  of  "pubHcans  and  sinners"  —  that  is,  probably 
of  lax  Jews,  and  perhaps  even  Greeks  —  and  he  never 
deviated  from  this  custom.^  He  was  always  prepared  to 
associate  with  Himself  the  outcast  and  the  sinner.  Some 
of  the  women  who  followed  Him  were  probably  drawn  from 
the  class  of  professional  harlots,  and  in  an  incident  recorded 
by  St.  Luke  the  complaint  is  made  against  Him  that  He 
allows  a  woman  to  minister  to  Himself  without  apparently 
recognizing  her  character.  No  doubt  all  this  unconventional 
conduct  seemed  very  shocking  in  a  religious  teacher. 

There  was  another  complaint.  Why  did  not  this  man 
who  made  such  great  religious  pretensions  impose  on  His 
disciples  any  rule  of  fasting?  All  really  religious  people, 
it  was  said,  fasted;  why  did  not  they?  Surely  all  this  was 
inconsistent  with  the  claims  that  He  made?  ^ 

But  the  most  serious  cause  of  difference  was  the  question 
of  the  Sabbath.  This  was  just  the  point  where  the  question 
of  the  interpretation  of  the  law  touched  practical  life. 
Much  of  the  teaching  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  might  be 
irritating,  but  it  was  rather  in  the  air.  No  real  harm,  it 
might  be  said,  could  come  from  it.  It  was  different  with 
the  Sabbath.  Here  the  most  sacred  prejudices  of  Judaism 
were  touched.  There  is  always  a  tendency  in  a  certain 
type  of  religious  mind  towards  a  scrupulous  strictness  of 
observance,  and  this  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  had  appeared 
in  its  most  rigid  form  in  the  regulations  that  had  grown  up 
about  the  Sabbath.  It  was  these  customs  that  more  than 
anything  else  preserved  the  separation  between  Jew  and 
Gentile,  and  the  mere  fact  of  the  inconvenience  that  it 
might  cause  to  a  Jew  living  among  the  heathen,  and  the 
great    temptation    that    there   would   be    to   laxity,   would 

1  ML  ii.  13-17.  ^  Mk.  ii.  18-22. 

14 


196  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

increase  the  determination  to  be  strict.  In  the  Hellenizing 
period  before  the  Maccabaean  revolt,  one  of  the  signs  of 
unfaithfulness  was  extreme  laxity  concerning  the  Sabbath, 
and  that  will  help  us  to  understand  the  fanatical  adherence 
to  what  was  supposed  to  be  the  law,  which  caused  over 
a  thousand  refugees  to  be  massacred  in  a  cave  without 
making  any  defence  rather  than  be  guilty  of  breaking  the 
Sabbath.  This  incident  led  to  some  modification  of  the 
custom,  but  there  were  many  other  occasions  in  history 
when  the  Jews  allowed  their  strict  adherence  to  religious 
rule  to  hamper  them  in  warfare. 

But  there  were  other  directions  in  which  an  over-strict 
rule  caused  an  over-elaborateness  of  regulation.  First  of 
all,  a  series  of  regulations  were  laid  down  as  to  what  a  man 
might  or  might  not  do  on  the  Sabbath.  Then,  when  the 
keeping  of  these  rules  was  found  to  be  impossible,  there 
was  developed  a  curious  system  of  casuistry,  by  which  many 
of  them  might  be  evaded.  An  essential  part  of  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  was  to  reveal  a  spiritual  religion  in  the  place  of  a 
formal  one,  and  it  was  in  relation  to  the  Sabbath  that  the 
clash  came  between  what  He  and  the  Rabbis  taught.  He 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  all  their  strict  rules  and 
all  these  shams  and  evasions.  Here,  as  conspicuously  as 
anywhere,  we  have  strong  spiritual  principles.  The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  Is  it 
lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath  Day,  to  save  Hfe  or  to 
kill?  We  may  notice  with  interest  that  at  the  very  begin- 
ning of  our  Lord's  ministry  He  had  cast  out  an  unclean 
spirit  on  the  Sabbath  Day  in  the  synagogue,  and  afterwards 
had  healed  Peter's  mother-in-law,  and  there  had  been  no 
criticism.  People  were  so  impressed  by  His  authority 
and  the  wonder  of  the  cure  that  criticism  had  not  begun. 
But  when  the  opposition  grew  up  it  was  on  this  more  than 
anything  else  that  it  fastened  itself,  for  here  Jesus  was  in 
constant  opposition  to  the  conventional  religious  life,  and 
it  was  here  in  all  probabihty  that  the  breach  between  Him 
and  the  organized  religion  of  the  day  became  acute. 

He  entered  into  a  synagogue  according  to  His  custom 
on  the  Sabbath  Day.  We  are  not  told  the  place,  but  it 
was  probably  at  Capernaum,  for  the  centre  of  His  teaching 


THE  OPPOSITION   GROWS  197 

must  have  been  always  the  centre  of  opposition  to  Him. 
There  was  a  man  there  with  a  withered  hand.  The  whole 
scene  may  have  been  prepared  beforehand  as  a  trap  to 
ensnare  him,  for  there  were  Pharisees  present  on  the  look- 
out. The  opposition  was  apparent,  but  our  Lord  did  not 
shrink  from  the  crisis.  It  was  a  clear  case  which  exhibited 
the  different  principles.  Was  it  lawful  to  break  the  rule  of 
the  Sabbath  in  order  to  do  good?  No  real  answer  could  be 
given,  so  those  who  were  determined  to  crush  His  teaching 
remained  silent.  Jesus  was  grieved  at  the  hardness  of 
their  hearts  and  healed  the  man. 

Events  gradually  reached  a  crisis,  and  a  conspiracy  was 
formed  between  the  strict  Judaizers  and  the  Herodians. 
These  supporters  of  the  Herods  were  opposed  to  any 
dangerous  popular  manifestation  which  might  shake  the 
position  of  that  dynasty.  For  such  half-native  rulers  were 
only  tolerated  by  the  Romans  as  the  best  means  of  keep- 
ing order  among  a  turbulent  people.  In  particular,  any 
Messianic  movement  was  dreaded  by  these  courtiers.  It 
would  not  only  cause  disturbances,  but  it  seemed  to  reflect 
on  the  lawfulness  of  the  Herodian  rule.  On  the  question  at 
issue  between  the  Pharisees  and  Jesus  they  were  probably 
indifferent.  But  they  were  glad  to  have  the  support  of 
these  earnest  and  fanatical  people.  So  this  unholy  alliance 
was  formed. 

It  is  perhaps  the  case  that  now  began  the  separation  of 
Jesus  from  the  synagogue.^  It  is  noticeable  that  after 
this  on  only  one  occasion  in  St.  Mark  are  we  told  of  Jesus 
preaching  in  the  synagogue,  and  that  was  the  incident  at 
Nazareth  which  may  have  been  wrongly  dated.  Henceforth 
for  a  time  His  addresses  are  to  crowds  in  the  open,  on  the 
mountain  slopes,  or  by  the  sea,  or  in  some  solitary  place 
to  which  He  had  retired.  Whether  He  was  definitely 
expelled  from  the  synagogue  we  do  not  know,  but  this  open 
breach  would,  in  any  case,  create  a  public  scandal.  This 
may  have  been  the  reason  why  those  about  Him  (whoever 
they  were)  tried  to  lay  hold  on  Him,  saying  that  He  was 

1  As  Dr.  Burkitt  thinks  {The  Gospel  History  and  its  Transmission, 
p.  80). 


iqS  the  galilaean  ministry 

mad.^  Another  and  even  more  significant  fact  is  that  on 
the  next  occasion  when  we  have  any  account  of  controversy, 
it  is  scribes  that  have  come  down  from  Jerusalem  that 
take  part  in  it.^  It  is  no  longer  a  mere  local  question. 
The  authorities  at  Jerusalem  are  disturbed.  They  have 
obviously  sent  down  representatives  to  investigate  and 
check  this  dangerous  teaching,  and  they  do  this  by  spread- 
ing the  accusation,  no  doubt  a  serious  one  in  those  days,  that 
Jesus  was  in  league  with  evil  spirits,  that  He  worked,  as 
would  have  been  said  in  the  Middle  Ages,  by  black  magic. 
It  is  obvious  that  the  breach  has  become  serious. 

But  as  yet  there  was  no  check  to  His  popularity.  Crowds 
come  together  from  all  parts  to  hear  Him,  so  great  that 
while  they  throng  about  Him  along  the  shores  of  the  sea, 
His  disciples  find  it  necessary  to  have  a  boat  ready  to  enable 
Him  to  escape  from  their  importunities.^ 

VI 

This  separation  from  the  synagogue  had  an  important 
result.  It  meant  the  beginning  of  the  organization  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

In  a  sense,  perhaps,  the  Church  began  at  the  moment 
when  our  Lord  attached  to  Himself  the  first  disciple;  from 
another  point  of  view,  the  Christian  Church  began  after  His 
death,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  but  the  time  when  this 
breach  between  Him  and  the  representatives  of  official 
Judaism  in  Galilee  became  acute  may  well  be  looked  on 
as  the  decisive  point  in  the  development.  For  what  did  it 
mean?  It  meant  that  the  Jewish  people  in  their  existing 
organization  would  not  accept  Him.  Crowds  might  come 
to  hear  Him;  the  people  might  be  full  of  expectation  and 
enthusiasm;  but  if  He  entered  the  synagogue  there  would 
be  no  call  upon  Him  to  speak.  It  is  probable  that  the 
breach  was  not  as  yet  final.  We  do  not  hear  of  any  ex- 
communication, or  that  He  had  been  turned  out  of  the 
synagogue.  Occasionally  He  might  still  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  preaching  there.  But  henceforth  the  national 
organization  was  not  at  His  disposal,  and  the  nation  as  a 
whole  could  not  follow  Him. 

1  Mk.  iii.  21.  2  -^i]^^  iii_  22.  2  Mk.  iv.  i. 


THE   DISCIPLES  199 

From  the  beginning  Jesus  had  attached  disciples  to 
Himself.  What  discipleship  meant  beyond  personal  attach- 
ment we  have  no  certain  knowledge.  If  the  statement  of 
St.  John  be  correct,  He  continued  the  custom  of  baptism 
which  He  had  inherited  from  the  Baptist,  and  as  we  are 
particularly  told  that  He  did  not  Himself  baptize,  but  only 
His  disciples,^  the  account  has  the  element  of  probabiHty. 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  custom  which  had  begun  with  the 
baptism  of  John  should  have  been  left  off  for  a  time  and 
then  been  resumed  after  our  Lord's  death.  He  Himself 
had  been  baptized  that  He  might  fulfil  all  righteousness,^ 
and  if  such  was  the  estimation  in  which  this  new  baptism 
was  held,  it  is  not  likely  that  it  would  have  been  suddenly 
dropped.  The  reason  that  there  is  no  reference  to  it  other- 
wise in  the  Gospel  is  that  the  Evangehsts  had  described 
the  beginning,  and  otherwise  they  did  not  further  dwell 
on  what  was  normal. 

What  else  was  implied  in  discipleship  we  do  not  know. 
Probably  what  was  remarked  at  the  time  was  the  complete 
absence  of  anything  in  the  way  of  formal  rule.  An  ordinary 
rehgious  teacher  in  the  East  would  impose  a  rule  —  probably 
a  strict  rule  of  hfe.  The  Essenes  would  be  the  most  remark- 
able example  of  this.  John  the  Baptist  seems  to  have  had 
some  rules.  It  is  most  probable  that  Jesus  imposed  none. 
It  was  a  complaint  against  Him  that  His  disciples  did  not 
fast  as  did  those  of  John  the  Baptist.  It  was  not  until 
they  asked  Him  that  He  gave  them  a  prayer,  and  then  one 
remarkable  for  its  shortness  and  its  contrast  to  the  vain 
repetitions  so  often  associated  with  religion.  It  is  quite 
probable  that  at  an  early  period  in  the  ministry  there  was 
some  form  of  common  meal  which  was  sacramental  in 
character  from  the  first,  and  finally  consecrated  at  the 
Last  Supper.  But,  fundamentally,  there  would  be  no  rules. 
His  followers  were  being  trained  to  worship  the  Father  in 
Spirit  and  in  truth. 

Apart  from  mere  hearers  there  were  soon  many  disciples 
who  followed  Jesus.^  We  are  particularly  told  that  there 
were  many  of  them,  and  that  from  the  beginning  some  of 

^  Jn.  iii.  22,  iv.  i.  2  Mt.  iii.  15.  ^  Mk.  ii.  15. 


200  THE   GALILAEAN   MINISTRY 

them  were  very  closely  attached  to  His  person.  But  if  the 
sequence  of  events  as  given  in  St.  Mark  is  correct,  and  it 
has,  indeed,  all  the  signs  of  probability,  it  was  just  after 
the  breach  with  the  stricter  Jews  that  He  took  the  definite 
step  of  selecting  the  Twelve.  The  occasion  seems  to  have 
been  the  coming  together  of  a  great  multitude  from  many 
places  and  distant  cities.  It  is  probable  that  the  presence 
of  this  great  body  of  strangers  would  make  demands  on 
His  care  and  forethought.  Some,  at  any  rate,  would  need 
help  and  assistance.  When  this  multitude  was  assembled 
on  the  seashore  Jesus  went  up  to  His  place  of  retirement 
on  the  mountain  above  the  town.  He  summoned  to  Him 
those  whom  He  had  chosen,  and  appointed  the  Twelve. 

They  are  spoken  of  on  one  occasion  as  Apostles.^  That 
was  certainly  the  name  that  they  bore  later,  but  it  is  one 
seldom  used  in  the  Gospel  narrative.  They  are  normally 
called  the  disciples,  being  included  in  the  general  company, 
and  when  the  reference  is  to  them  particularly,  the  name 
by  which  they  are  known  is  "the  Twelve."  The  purpose 
of  their  selection,  as  the  name  Apostle  implies,  is  that 
they  might  be  sent  out  to  preach;  but  it  is  probable  that 
the  more  important  duty  was  that  which  is  mentioned  by 
St.  Mark,  "that  they  might  be  with  Him."  These  words 
throw  real  light  on  the  purpose  of  our  Lord,  and  imply 
that  a  definite  stage  has  now  been  reached  in  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  and  the  fulfilment  of  what  Jesus  designed  to 
accomplish.  If  His  work  was  not  to  be  carried  out  by  the 
national  Jewish  Church  —  and  it  had  become  plain  that  it 
could  not  be  —  then  other  means  must  be  found.  Crowds 
might  come  to  Hear  Him  preach,  or  still  more  be  attracted 
by  the  fame  of  His  miracles,  but  how  could  they  help  to 
the  fulfilment  of  His  purpose?  So  far  as  they  had  any 
expectations,  they  were  looking  forward,  as  will  become 
apparent  later,  to  the  restoration  of  the  Kingdom  of  Israel. 
How  could  the  true  teaching  which  Jesus  had  come  to 
bring  to  mankind  be  preserved  and  taught?  There  must 
be  a  body  of  men  trained  to  accomplish  this,  men  who 
would  be  always  with  Him,  to  whom  He  might  entrust  His 

^  Mk.  vi.  30.  The  words  "whom  also  he  named  Apostles"  in  iii.  14 
are  very  doubtful. 


THE  TWELVE  201 

deepest  teaching,  who  might  learn  much  which  the  people 
could  not  understand,  who  might  carry  on  the  message 
when  the  Master  was  taken  away.  It  is  certainly  significant 
that  henceforth  we  hear  less  of  popular  teaching,  and  more 
of  instruction  of  disciples.  In  a  short  time  we  shall  find 
Him  taking  a  wide  journey  with  them  where  many  oppor- 
tunities could  be  given  for  their  private  teaching,  and  very 
soon  He  tells  them:  "To  you  is  given  the  mystery  of  the 
kingdom  of  God."^ 

We  have  four  lists  altogether  of  the  Apostles,  and  it  is 
somewhat  remarkable  that  there  should  be  variation  not 
only  in  the  order,  but  in  the  actual  names.  This  seems 
clear  evidence  that  some  of  them  had  but  little  importance 
in  the  future  history  of  Christianity.  While  the  leaders 
were  in  a  real  sense  founders  of  the  Church,  the  majority 
are  seldom  mentioned  in  the  Gospel  narrative,  and  soon 
were  nothing  but  names.  This  seems  a  sufficient  ground 
for  thinking  that  this  list  of  the  Twelve  is  authentic.  If, 
as  some  have  suggested,  the  list  had  been  drawn  up  at  a 
later  date  without  any  sound  tradition,  names  would  have 
been  inserted  which  were  known  in  later  history.  For  the 
same  reason  also  we  may  believe  that  the  choice  of  Matthias 
described  in  the  Acts  was  historical.  Had  the  event  been 
imagined  at  a  later  date,  a  name  would  have  been  selected 
which  was  not  entirely  insignificant. 

The  list  of  these  Apostles  is,  in  all  our  sources,'  divided 
into  three  groups  of  four  each.  To  the  first  group  belong 
the  best  known  names.  At  the  head  in  every  list  stands 
Simon  Barjonas.  His  designation  of  "First"  impHes  that 
he  was  looked  upon  as  the  chief  and  leader  of  the  Apostolic 
band,  a  position  which  the  narratives  of  the  Gospel  and 
Acts  alike  support.  Either  now,  or  perhaps  earlier,  he  had 
received  the  name  of  Cephas,  but  the  Gospels,  influenced 
by  his  subsequent  fame,  know  him  best  by  the  Greek  form 
of  it,  Peter.  It  was  necessary  to  distinguish  him  from 
other  Simons,  as  the  name  was  common,  and  Jesus  had 
clearly  selected  him  as  the  one  on  whose  faith  and  en- 
thusiasm He  would  found  the  Church.     He  had  been  one 

^  Mk.  iv.  II.    On  this  subject  see  Latham,  Pastor  Paslorum. 


202  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

of  the  disciples  of  the  Baptist.  In  those  early  days  he  had 
already  become  attached  to  Jesus,  and  if  the  conjecture  we 
have  ventured  on  be  true  it  was  to  seek  him  that  Jesus 
came  to  Capernaum.  He  had  an  impulsive,  generous  nature, 
but  there  was  a  curious  strain  of  weakness  in  his  character. 
He  eagerly  steps  forward  on  the  waters,  but  his  faith  fails 
him  when  he  begins  to  sink.  Yet  there  was  always  a  loving 
hand  ready  to  save  him;  and  his  impulsive  enthusiasm  was 
just  what  was  wanted  to  give  men  a  lead.  If  he  once 
started  others  would  follow,  and  some  who  were  a  little 
hesitating  at  the  beginning  might  show  themselves  a  little 
firmer  when  the  test  came.  So,  in  spite  of  his  faults  he  is 
the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  founded,  and  at  the  end 
of  an  adventurous  life  in  which  he  played  a  part  greater, 
perhaps,  than  he  understood,  in  spite  (if  legend  may  be 
believed)  of  one  characteristic  shrinking,  he  crowned  his 
life  by  a  martyr's  death  in  the  imperial  city  and  gave  his 
name  to  the  proudest  monarchy  of  the  world. 

His  brother  Andrew  never  played  any  such  part,  but  if 
the  story  in  St.  John's  Gospel  may  be  trusted,  he  has  one 
great  title  to  fame.  He  it  was  who  came  first  to  Jesus, 
and  he  it  was  who  brought  Peter  to  Him.  There  are  many 
men  who  have  performed  on,e  essential  act  in  their  lives  and 
have  then  been  content  to  play  a  secondary  part. 

The  two  brothers  James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
were  very  different  characters.  It  has  already  been  pointed 
out  that  possibly  they  were  cousins  of  Jesus,  their  mother 
Salome  being  the  sister  of  the  Virgin.  They  had  also  been 
disciples  of  the  Baptist,  and  they,  with  Peter  and  Andrew, 
were  the  first  called.  With  Peter  they  formed  the  inner 
circle  of  the  Apostles,  and  were  on  all  special  occasions  the 
chosen  companions  of  their  Master;  they  were  present  at 
the  Transfiguration  and  at  the  agony  in  the  Garden.  The 
two  brothers  were  named  Boanerges,  which  is  interpreted 
for  us  as  "the  sons  of  thunder."^  It  seems  fairly  certain 
that  there  is  some  corruption  in  the  text,  but  the  interpreta- 
tion need  not  be  a  mistake.  There  was  something  fierce  in 
the  enthusiasm  of  these  two  sons  of  Zebedee.  They  were  too 
eager  for  the  reputation  of  their  Master,  and  too  eager  for 

1  Mk.  iii.  17. 


THE   TWELVE  203 

their  own  positions  in  relation  to  Him.  They  would  call 
down  fire  from  heaven  on  the  churHsh  Samaritan  village, 
and  received  a  stern  rebuke.^  They  would  seek  for  them- 
selves a  too  prominent  place  in  the  Messianic  kingdom,  and 
learnt  another  hard  lesson.^  But  their  fault  was  but  the 
over-eagerness  of  a  too  warm  affection  and  an  over-zealous 
loyalty,  and  they,  too,  received  the  due  reward  of  their 
faith.  James  was  the  first  of  the  Apostles  to  follow  in  the 
steps  of  his  Master  and  lay  down  his  Hfe.  But  what  of 
John?  Did  he,  too,  perish  early,  as  some  would  hold,  or 
was  the  son  of  Zebedee  the  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved, 
who  in  after  years,  an  old  man  in  distant  lands,  told,  on 
the  shores  of  the  Aegean,  the  last  stories  of  the  wonderful 
days  by  the  Sea  of  Gahlee? 

The  second  group  was  headed  by  Philip,  a  native  of 
Bethsaida,  a  disciple  of  the  Baptist,  the  bearer  of  a  Greek 
name.  The  most  interesting  of  the  personal  memories  of  him, 
which  we  find  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  makes  him  the  agent 
through  whom  the  Greeks  desired  to  come  to  Jesus.  Does 
that  imply  not  only  a  Greek  name,  but  a  Greek  origin? 
And  did  he  also  become  one  of  the  wanderers  from  Palestine 
who  ended  their  days  in  Asia?  Or  was  this  a  confusion 
with  the  Philip  who  was  one  of  the  Seven? 

With  Philip  is  always  associated  Bartholomew.  The 
name  is  a  patronymic,  the  son  of  Tolmai,  and  no  doubt  he 
had  also  a  personal  name.  Again  a  problem  arises.  May 
we  identify  him,  as  has  often  been  done,  with  that  Na- 
thanael,  "the  Israelite  in  whom  was  no  guile,"  who  had  been 
one  of  the  followers  of  the  Baptist  and  whose  call  the  fourth 
Gospel  brings  into  close  connection  with  Philip? 

The  next  pair  were  Matthew  and  Thomas.  Matthew 
was  identified  by  the  author  of  the  first  Gospel  with  that 
Levi,  the  son  of  Alphaeus,  who  had  been  a  tax-gatherer.^ 
There  is  nothing  else  to  support  the  identification,  which 
may  naturally  cause  some  questioning.  Was  it  the  result 
of  the  association  of  his  name  with  that  Gospel?  And  does 
it  embody  any  early  tradition?  Thomas  bore  the  Greek 
name  of  Didymus  or  the  twin,  the  Apostle  who  was  ready 
'  Lk.  ix.  54.  2  ]yj]^   ^   25. 

*  Mk.  ii.  14;   Lk.  v.  27;   Mt.  ix.  9, 


204  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

to  go  to  Bethany  to  die  with  his  Master,  who  doubted  and 
confirmed  the  Resurrection. 

At  the  head  of  the  third  group  came  James,  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  hardly  to  be  identified  with  any  other  James,  but 
perhaps  the  brother  of  the  pubUcan  Levi.^  With  him  was 
Thaddaeus,  of  whom  nothing  is  known,  for  whom  St.  Luke 
substituted,  probably  by  a  doubtful  identification,  Judas 
the  son  of  James.^  More  interest  attaches  to  Simon  the 
Zealot,  whose  designation  tells  us  that  he  was  a  Hnk  between 
the  disciples  of  Jesus  and  that  fourth  sect  of  the  Jews  (as 
it  is  called  by  Josephus),  the  followers  of  Judas  of  Galilee, 
who  represented  national  aspirations  in  their  most  extreme 
form.  Last  of  all  came  Judas,  called  Iscariot;  possibly 
the  name  means  the  man  of  Kerioth  in  Judaea,  in  which 
case  he  would  be  the  only  Judaean  member  of  the  band. 
He  was  the  betrayer. 

The  fist  of  the  Apostles  contains  the  names  of  a  few  men 
well  known  in  Gospel  tradition  and  in  history,  of  others 
almost  unknown.  Its  nucleus  was  formed  by  a  body  of 
fishermen  from  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  who  were  the  first  called, 
the  most  faithful,  and  the  most  conspicuous.  Some  of  the 
Apostles  had  Greek  names,  and  may  have  been  of  Greek 
origin.  One  had  perhaps  belonged  to  the  hated  class  of 
tax-gatherers;  one  had  taken  part  in  the  wildest  nationalist 
movement  of  the  times.  Most  of  them  were  not  men  of 
any  distinction,  but  all,  with  one  exception,  were,  so  far 
as  we  know,  loyal  and  faithful  followers  of  their  Master 
during  His  early  hfe,  and  after  His  death  in  the  early 
days  bore  their  part  in  recording  His  Hfe  and  teaching  and 
in  organizing  the  kingdom  which  was  called  after  His 
name. 

With  these  disciples  there  was  associated  a  body  of  women 
who  were  the  companions  on  some  occasions  of  His  wander- 
ings and  ministered  to  Him  of  their  substance.  St.  Mark 
tells  us  that  there  were  present  at  the  crucifixion  Mary 
Magdalene  and  Mary,  the  mother  of  James  the  Little  and  of 
Joses,  and  Salome,  who  when  He  was  in  Galilee  followed  Him 

1  Since  "son  of  Alpheus,"  in  Mk,  ii.  14,  iii-  18,  is  most  naturally  inter- 
preted as  referring  to  the  same  Alpheus. 

2  Lk.  vi.  16;   Acts  i.  13. 


MARY   MAGDALENE  205 

and  ministered  to  Him.^  St.  Luke  tells  us  that  He  was 
accompanied  by  certain  women  who  had  been  healed  from 
evil  spirits  and  sickness  —  Mary,  called  the  Magdalene,  from 
whom  went  forth  seven  devils;  and  Joanna,  the  wife  of 
Chuza,  Herod's  steward;  and  Susanna,  and  many  others. 
"These  ministered  to  Him  of  their  substance.""^ 

Of  these  the  most  famous  was  Mary  Magdalene.  She 
came  from  Magdala,  a  rich  town  in  the  plain  of  Gennesa- 
reth,  of  evil  reputation,  and  the  Christian  Church  has  al- 
ways held  that  she  had  been  rescued  from  a  life  of  sin, 
Salome  was  the  wife  of  Zebedee  and  probably  the  sister  of 
the  Virgin.  Mary,  the  mother  of  James  the  Less  and  of 
Joses,  was  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  the  brother  of  Joseph.^  The 
mention  by  St.  Luke  of  Joanna,  who  was  the  wife  of  an  offi- 
cial in  Herod's  court,  is  interesting,  for  it  is  among  the 
characteristics  of  St.  Luke's  writings  that  he  seems  to  have 
a  certain  amount  of  knowledge  of  the  Herodian  court.  She 
was  one  who  attended  the  Lord  to  the  end.^  Of  Susanna  we 
know  nothing  further. 

Some  of  these  women  were,  no  doubt,  persons  of  sub- 
stance, as  may  no  doubt  also  have  been  some  of  the  Twelve. 
Whether  there  were  other  men  besides  the  Twelve  who  were 
at  this  time  associated  in  any  close  intimacy  with  Jesus 
we  do  not  know.  The  whole  company  lived,  it  seems,  a 
communistic  life.  They  had  a  common  purse  which  was 
entrusted  to  Judas  Iscariot,  who  showed  himself,  we  are 
told,  unworthy  of  the  trust.^  They  formed  a  Httle  flock 
who  accompanied  Jesus  in  His  wanderings  and  became  the 
depositaries  of  His  teaching. 

The  first  appointment  of  the  Twelve  was  followed  by  a 
period  of  preaching  and  teaching  to  the  crowds  who  had 
come  to  hear  this  new  Prophet.  But  a  time  came  when, 
either  wearied  with  the  effort  and  desiring  soKtude,  or 
perhaps  wishing  to  carry  His  message  further,  Jesus  crossed 
the  Sea  of  Gahlee  and  landed  at  a  place  called  Gerasa  or 
Gergesa  on  the  opposite  coast.^  The  result  does  not  seem 
to  have  been  satisfactory.    Later  came  another  and  perhaps 

*  Mk.  XV.  40,  41.  ^  Lk.  viii.  2,  3. 

*  This  conjecture  comes  by  combining  Mk.  xv.  40  with  Jn.   xix.    25. 

*  Lk.  xxiv.  10.  ^  Jn.  xii.  6.  ^  Mk.  v.  i. 


2o6  THE   GALILAEAN  MINISTRY 

a  longer  tour  through  GaHlee.  It  included  an  unsuccessful 
visit  to  His  own  home,  Nazareth.^  This  tour  occupied  some 
time,  and  was  followed  by  a  further  extension  of  the  work 
of  preaching.  The  Twelve  had  now  been  with  Him  some 
considerable  time.  They  had  learnt  something  of  the 
mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  now  they  are  sent 
forth  two  and  two  to  carry  their  message  from  village  to 
village.^  This  mission  of  the  Twelve  marks  the  close  of 
the  Galilaean  ministry,  for  events  were  happening  which 
brought  to  an  end  the  first  stage  of  our  Lord's  work. 

How  long  this  GaHlaean  ministry  continued-  we  have  no 
certain  means  of  knowing.  There  are  no  definite  indications 
of  time,  and  it  is  as  uncertain  as  is  the  whole  length  of  our 
Lord's  ministry.  One  thing  seems  to  me  clear.  We  must 
not  unduly  shorten  it.  It  included  at  least  two  tours  of 
some  length  through  Galilee,  it  had  seen  the  growth  of  a 
considerable  measure  of  popularity  and  the  development  of 
a  strong  opposition,  it  had  seen  the  organization  of  an  embryo 
Church.  A  period  of  two  years  would  certainly  not  be  too 
great. 

1  Mk.  vi.  I.  *  Mk.  vi.  7. 


J 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  NEW  TEACHING 


The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  impresses  upon  us  the  fact  that 
the  most  important  work  of  Jesus  was  His  teaching.  It 
was  that,  above  all  things,  and  probably  more  than  His 
miracles,  which  attracted  attention.  ''They  were  astonished 
at  his  teaching."  "Let  us  go  to  the  villages  round  about 
that  I  may  preach  there,  for  for  this  purpose  I  came  forth." 
Before  the  miracle  of  the  five  thousand  we  are  told  that 
"he  began  to  teach  them  many  things."  Later,  again, 
towards  the  close  of  the  ministry,  it  is  said:  "And  as  he 
was  accustomed  he  again  taught  them."^ 

But  though  from  St.  Mark  we  gather  that  the  ministry 
of  Jesus  was  a  teaching  ministry,  about  the  teaching  itself 
he  tells  us  Httle.  He  gives  us  only  fragmentary  specimens. 
There  is  no  attempt  to  present  the  message  in  at  all  a 
systematic  form.  The  reason  for  this  was  most  probably 
that  other  documents  were  in  existence  which  contained 
this  teaching,  and  that  the  main  purpose  of  the  second 
Gospel  was  to  describe  His  life  and  works.  At  any  rate, 
this  is  what  it  does.  This  deficiency  in  St.  Mark  is  made 
up  by  St.  Matthew,  who  in  the  "Sermon  on  the  Mount"^ 
gives  us  a  carefully  arranged  account  of  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  and  supplements  it  by  other  long  discourses. 

There  are  certain  preliminary  questions  to  which  we 
should  like  an  answer.  How  far  is  the  sermon  as  we  have 
it  due  to  the  compiler,  and  how  far  does  it  come  from 
earher  sources?  Does  it  represent  an  actual  sermon  spoken 
by  our  Lord  on  some  pre-eminent  occasion?  Or  is  it  only 
a  compilation  of  His  sayings?     If  it  represents  an  actual 

^  Mk.  i.  22,  38;   vi.  34;   X.  I. 

2  St.  Matthew,  chapters  v.-vii.  The  sermon  in  St.  Luke  is  in  chap.  vi. 
20-49.  There  is  a  very  large  literature  on  the  subject.  In  Hastings'  Dic- 
tionary of  the  Bible,  Extra  Volume,  there  is  a  convenient  summary  which 
gives  references  to  all  the  more  important  works. 

207 


2o8  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

sermon,  at  what  time  and  on  what  occasion  was  it  dehvered? 
If  not,  how  far  may  it  be  looked  upon  as  an  actual  repre- 
sentation of  His  teaching? 

Besides  the  sermon  in  St.  Matthew  there  is  a  similar  one 
in  St.  Luke,  sometimes  called  the  "Sermon  on  the  Plain," 
as  it  is  stated  to  have  been  preached  there.  A  considerable 
part  of  it  seems  to  cover  the  same  ground  as  does  St. 
Matthew,  but  it  is  far  shorter.  There  is  sufficient  resem- 
blance to  show  that  for  a  large  amount  of  it  there  must  be 
a  common  source.  It  is  not  only  that  there  is  identity  of 
subject-matter,  there  is  also  identity  of  order.  But  which 
represents  the  original  form?  In  St.  Matthew's  sermon 
there  are  107  verses,  of  these  58  have  parallels  in  St.  Luke, 
but  only  26  in  the  sermon;  the  remaining  32  are  in  other 
chapters  and  in  different  contexts.  In  St.  Luke's  sermon 
there  are  about  8  verses  which  do  not  occur  in  St,  Matthew, 
there  are  4  verses  common  to  St.  Mark,  and  a  few  which 
are  also  reported  in  other  places  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel. 

If  we  take  St.  Matthew's  sermon  by  itself  we  may  look 
upon  it  as  a  new  law:  it  was  to  take  the  place  of  the  old 
law  delivered  on  Mount  Sinai,  and  for  that  reason  it  was 
placed  at  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel.  As  when  the  law 
was  made  on  Ebal  and  Gerizim  there  were  the  blessings 
and  the  curses,  so  we  have  the  Beatitudes,  and  there  were 
also,  in  one  form  of  the  tradition,  the  woes.  Then  comes 
the  relation  of  the  Old  Law  and  the  New  Law,  and  the 
character  of  the  New  Law  is  put  before  us  in  a  series  of 
illustrations.  Then  comes  the  New  Worship,  in  its  three- 
fold division  of  Almsgiving,  Prayer,  and  Fasting.  From 
this  we  pass  on  to  the  fundamental  characteristics  of  the 
New  Life.  It  is  a  life  which  concerns  itself  with  things 
eternal,  and  not  with  the  things  of  this  world.  The  new 
life  also  has  its  rules  for  our  conduct.  Then  there  is  an 
appeal  to  Hve  this  higher  life;  and  the  sermon  ends  with 
the  contrast  between  the  Hfe  founded  on  the  rock,  the  words 
of  Jesus,  and  the  life  founded  on  the  shifting  sands  of 
worldhness.  St.  Matthew  gives  us  a  well-arranged  account 
of  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus. 

But  is  this  the  earliest  form  of  the  document  which  we 
can  arrive  at?    We  know  from  other  instances  that  it  was 


THE   SERMON  ON  THE   MOUNT  209 

St.  Matthew's  habit  to  collect  together  words  of  our  Lord 
from  different  sources  and  belonging  to  different  occasions 
and  to  arrange  them  according  to  their  subject-matter. 

This  might  lead  us  to  think  that  the  sermon  as  he  gives  it 
was  mainly  due  to  his  editorial  skill,  but  there  are  reasons 
which  might  make  us  modify  this  conclusion.  A  consider- 
able portion  of  the  sermon  of  St.  Matthew  which  is  omitted 
by  St.  Luke  dealt  with  a  subject  which  was  of  vital  interest 
in  the  time  of  our  Lord  and  to  the  Jewish  Church,  but  had 
little  concern  for  the  Gentile  Christians  for  whom  St.  Luke 
wrote.  It  might  be  held,  therefore,  that  he  omits  them 
for  that  reason.  Moreover,  the  sermon  as  we  have  it  in 
St.  Luke  reads  very  much  like  a  Summary  in  which  only 
the  most  striking  passages  have  been  preserved.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why,  if  St.  Luke  had  before 
him  in  a  connected  form  all  the  verses  which  he  gives  in 
other  contexts,  he  should  have  taken  the  trouble  to  arrange 
them  differently  and  remove  them  from  the  contexts  in 
which  the  sermon  gave  them. 

There  is  some  reason,  then,  for  thinking  that  the  two 
writers  had  a  source  before  them  in  w^hich  a  considerable 
part,  but  not  the  whole,  of  the  sermon  was  contained  in 
a  connected  form.  What  were  its  limits  must  be,  however, 
so  much  a  matter  of  conjecture  that  it  is  hardly  worth 
while  to  attempt  to  solve  the  problem.  If  we  examine  the 
various  reconstructions  that  have  been  attempted,  we  shall 
find  in  them  the  differences  which  always  must  arise  in 
dealing  with  the  history  of  documents  where  so  much  of 
the  evidence  is  internal  and  subjective. 

But  was  this  original  sermon  a  compilation,  or  did  it 
go  back  to  an  actual  sermon  of  our  Lord?  Again  we  must 
be  content  with  considerable  incertitude.  Jesus  preached 
many  times.  The  same  teaching  must  have  been  given 
on  many  occasions,  to  many  audiences,  in  language  some- 
times the  same,  sometimes  different.  A  single  discourse 
intended  as  a  great  pronouncement  would  not  have  been 
consistent  with  what  we  can  surmise  of  His  methods.  He 
did  not,  as  we  shall  see,  begin  by  making  claims  about  His 
person.  He  gradually  led  'His  disciples  on  so  that  they 
might   arrive   at    their   own    conclusions.      So   in    the   new 


2IO  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

teaching.  We  should  not  expect  a  great  and  startling 
pronouncement,  or  a  systematic  exposition.  We  should 
expect  Him  by  parable,  by  proverb,  by  epigram,  by  taking 
advantage  of  any  incident  that  occurred  or  any  question 
that  was  asked,  gradually  to  lead  men  on  to  these  new 
^  conceptions.  His  teaching,  therefore,  seems  to  have  been 
\  preserved  originally  in  fragments,  in  short  sayings,  in 
characteristic  remarks,  often  repeated,  easily  impressed  upon 
the  memory;  sometimes  (it  might  seem)  contradictory  to 
one  another.  Gradually  He  would,  by  His  words  and  acts, 
make  an  impression.  Gradually  what  He  said  would  appear 
as  having  definite  principles  and  systematic  ideas  behind  it, 
but  the  systematic  exposition  of  philosophic  teaching  is 
often  the  work  of  the  chronicler  and  the  compilgrj_  It  has 
been  done  very  well  for  us  by  the  author  of  the  first 
Gospel,  assisted  as  he  was  by  the  source  that  he  used,  and 
we  shall  not  make  a  mistake  in  following  his  guidance. 
Jesus  was  an  ethical  teacher,  but  He  did  not  produce 
a  system  of  ethics  any  more  than  Socrates  a  system  of 
philosophy. 

I  have  grave  doubt,  therefore,  whether  we  can  look  on 
the  sermon  as  we  have  it  either  in  St.  Matthew  or  St.  Luke 
as  a  discourse  delivered  in  this  form.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  need  have  no  doubt  that  the  substance  of  the 
teaching  is  original,  or  that  St.  Matthew  gives  us  a  correct 
impression  of  the  teaching  by  his  systematic  arrangement. 
The  combined  testimony  of  the  first  and  third  Gospels 
tells  us  that  for  the  great  body  of  it  we  have  an  early 
source.  There  are  parallels  to  some  passages  in  St.  Mark, 
and  the  amount  of  variation  which  exists  between  the 
different  traditions  is  so  small  as  to  be  nearly  negligible. 
But  more  than  that,  there  are  abundant  parallels  to  the 
subject-matter  of  the  teaching  in  our  Lord's  words,  as 
reported  elsewhere  in  these  two  Gospels  and  in  St.  Mark. 
The  tradition,  too,  of  Christian  teaching  preserved  in 
St.  John's  Gospel  and  in  St.  Paul's  writings  harmonizes 
with  it.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  reason  for  thinking  that  we 
have  not  a  quite  authentic  tradition  of  the  ethical  teaching 
of  Jesus.  The  variations  in  the  tradition  are  neither 
considerable  nor  important. 


THE   BEATITUDES  211 

If  these  conclusions  be  correct,  there  is  no  occasion  for 
the  final  question,  When  was  the  sermon  delivered?  Both 
Evangelists  find  occasions  for  it  in  connection  with  incidents 
recorded  in  St.  Mark.  St.  Matthew  connects  it  with  a 
great  influx  of  disciples  from  all  parts,  but  transfers  it  to 
the  beginning  of  the  ministry.  He  wishes  to  introduce  the 
account  of  our  Lord's  life  by  a  summary  of  His  teaching. 
St.  Luke  connects  it  with  the  call  of  the  Twelve.  No  doubt 
on  both  these  occasions  our  Lord  gave  much  teaching; 
probably  He  said  many  of  the  things  that  we  have  in  these 
sermons;  but  there  is  no  certainty  that  these  actual  dis- 
courses, as  we  have  them,  were  connected  with  these 
particular  occasions.  It  will  be  most  useful  for  our  purpose 
if,  following  the  example  of  St.  Matthew,  we  arrange  in  a 
way  suited  to  the  point  of  view  of  the  present  day,  the 
great  principles  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 


WTien  the  law  was  proclaimed  on  the  mountains  of  Ebal 
and  Gerizim,  blessings  were  promised  to  all  those  who 
hearkened  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  the  blessing  of  a  pros- 
perous and  successful  life: 

"Blessed  shalt  thou  be  in  the  city  and  blessed  shalt  thou 
be  in  the  field. 

"Blessed  shall  be  the  fruit  of  thy  body,  and  the  fruit 
of  thy  ground,  and  the  fruit  of  thy  cattle. 

"Blessed  shall  be  thy  basket  and  thy  kneading  trough. 

"Blessed  shalt  thou  be  when  thou  comest  in  and  when 
thou  goest  out."^ 

The  new  law  also  begins  with  a  promise  of  blessing,  but 
to  those  who  had  been  brought  up  in  the  temporal  aspira- 
tions of  the  old  law  or  under  the  shadow  of  the  material 
Graeco-Roman  civilization,  how  startling  must  have  seemed 
the  contrast! 

"  Blessed  are  the  poor,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

*  Deut.  xxviii.  2-6. 

IS 


212  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

"Blessed  are  they  that  mourn,  for  they  shall  be  com- 
forted. 

"Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall  inherit  the  earth. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  hunger  and  thirst  after  righteous- 
ness, for  they  shall  be  filled. 

"Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy. 

"Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God. 

"Blessed  are  the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called 
the  children  of  God. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  are  persecuted,  for  righteousness' 
sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."^ 

What  is  the  idea  that  these  words  imply?  Who  are  the 
poor  to  whom  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven? 

It  may  be  remarked  with  interest,  and  its  significance 
will  be  shortly  apparent,  how  much  in  these  Beatitudes  is 
directly  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament.  That  is  in  a 
marked  way  true  of  the  leading  conception.  "The  poor" 
had  become  a  recognized  name  for  the  pious  and  devout.^ 
It  is  a  regular  refrain  of  the  Psalms,  that  God  for- 
getteth  not  the  cry  of  the  poor.  "Arise,  O  Lord;  O  God 
Hft  up  thine  hand;  forget  not  the  poor."^  The  poor,  "the 
Lord  is  his  refuge."^  "Turn  thou  unto  me  and  have 
mercy  upon  me,  for  I  am  destitute  and  in  misery."^  "I 
am  poor  and  needy,  yet  the  Lord  careth  for  me!"^  In 
contrast  to  this  it  is  the  wicked  and  the  proud  who  spoil 
the   poor.      "He   doth   ravish    the   poor   when   he   getteth 

'  Mt.  V.  3-10;   Lk.  vi.  20-22. 

2  I  owe  the  following  note  to  Dr.  Burney:  "  'Poor  in  spirit'  is  not  at 
all  what  we  mean  by  'poor-spirited.'  There  are  two  expressions,  like  each 
other  in  form  and  nearly  related  in  meaning,  which  frequently  occur  to- 
gether in  O.T.  One  of  these  is  usually  translated  'meek'  and  the  other 
'poor';  but  a  more  correct  rendering  would  be  'humble'  (before  God), 
and  'humbled'  (by  external  circumstances  —  e.g.,  the  persecutions  of  the 
godless).  The  phrase  in  the  Gospel  denotes  those  who  are  'humbled' 
because  they  are  'humble'  (towards  God)  —  i.e.,  because  for  religious  mo- 
tives (their  attitude  towards  God)  they  refuse  to  take  steps  to  avenge  them- 
selves or  assert  their  rights.  The  best  commentary  on  the  two  expressions 
is  to  be  found  in  i  Peter  ii.  23,  'who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled  not 
again;  when  he  suffered,  threatened  not;  but  committed  himself  to  him 
that  judgeth  righteously.'    This  is  the  true  Christian  spirit." 

3  Ps.  X.  12.  ■*  Ps.  xiv.  6. 
5  Ps.  XXV.  16.                                                           *  Ps.  xl.  17. 


THE   POOR  213 

him  into  his  net,"^    It  is  the  proud  particularly  whom  the 
Lord  abhorreth. 

The  reasons  for  this  usage  go  back  to  the  days  after  the 
exile.  While  the  rich  aristocracy  of  the  temple  always 
tended  towards  latitudinarianism,  if  not  to  actual  disloyalty 
to  their  faith,  there  grew  up  a  body  of  Jews  for  the  most 
part,  no  doubt,  actually  poor  and  socially  inferior,  who 
were  devoted  to  the  law  and  religion  of  Israel.  They  were 
in  a  humble  position.  They  were  subject,  no'  doubt,  to  a 
great  deal  of  contempt.  A  time  came  when,  under  Hellen- 
istic rule,  they  were  bitterly  persecuted.  But  their  deHght 
was  in  the  law  of  the  Lord:  they  were  eager  to  fulfil  the 
will  of  God,  and  they  put  spiritual  above  material  aims. 
As  the  Chasidim  they  were  a  devoted  if  difficult  body  of 
men  at  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  From  them  sprang  the 
Phnjirif^f^s  wbO;  whpn  the}'-  nrgnired  nnthnrit}"  and  position, 
hpcn^p  thfmselves  the  j^roud.  But  their  representatives 
had  always  remained  in  Israel,  men  who  preferred  piety  to 
wealth  or  honour  or  power. 

It  was  these  that  our  Lord  described  as  "the  Blessed," 
the  men  who  cared  for  heavenly  riches  and  not  for  earthly, 
who  were  often  poor  in  earthly  things,  and  always  poor  in 
thinking  little  of  wealth,  who*were  humble,  who  hungered 
after  righteousness,  who  were  sincere  in  their  heart,  merciful 
in  their  judgment  and  disposition,  who  were  prepared  to 
endure  any  form  of  persecution  for  the  sake  of  what  they 
held  to  be  righteousness;  and  it  was  these  who  would 
ultimately  attain  the  promises,  the  blessedness  of  a  life 
lived  in  harmony  with  God,  the  acquisition  of  righteousness, 
which  is  the  greatest  of  all  possessions,  mercy  in  God's 
judgment,  the  inheritance  of  the  earth,  and  the  kingdom 
of  heaven. 

There  is  in  these  promises  a  curious  and  interesting 
mixture  of  the  spiritual  and  earthly,  and  often  the  language 
is  ambiguous.  No  doubt  by  many  our  Lord's  words  were 
taken  in  a  simple  way.  The  poor,  the  wretched,  the  hungry, 
the  persecuted  would  soon  find  their  condition  changed. 
The  Messianic  kingdom  would  shortly  be  established.  In 
that  kingdom  it  was  they  who  would  be  rich  and  prosperous 

^    Ps.   X.   Q. 


214  THE   NEW  TEACHING 

and  become  the  chief  men  of  the  earth.  Some  expected 
all  these  things;  and  it  was  true  that  Jesus  cared  for  the 
poor  and  needy,  and  had  compassion  on  all  infirmity.  We 
shall  often  come  on  such  misinterpretations,  and  this  was 
the  reason  why,  at  a  great  crisis  of  His  ministry,  when  it 
became  apparent  that  this  was  not  what  He  was  going  to 
accomplish,  many  forsook  Him.  But  that  was  not  the 
main  thought  of  Jesus.  His  conceptions  were  very  different. 
He  was  thinking  of  the  blessedness  of  the  spiritually-minded, 
and  the  blessings  were  to  be  spiritual.  To  them  was  the 
kingdom  and  the  inheritance,  but  that  meant  that  all  their 
spiritual  longings  would  be  satisfied,  that  they  would  be 
the  sons  of  God,  and  would  attain  the  beatific  vision  of  the 
sight  of  God. 

We  have  already  compared  the  ideal  with  that  of  the 
Old  Testament.  We  might  illustrate  it  also  by  the  contrast 
that  it  affords  to  the  ecclesiastical  ideal  which  grew  up  in 
the  Christian  Church.  From  the  Acts  of  Paul  and  Thecla, 
an  apocryphal  story  which  dates  probably  from  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  we  learn  how  it  was  thought  neces- 
sary to  rewrite  the  Beatitudes  and  thus  make  up  for  the  de- 
ficiencies of  the  Gospel. 

When  Paul,  we  are  told,  entered  into  the  house  of  Onesi- 
phorus  there  was  great  joy  and  bending  of  the  knees  and 
a  breaking  of  bread  and  a  word  of  God  on  asceticism  and 
resurrection,  and  Paul  said: 

"Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see 
God. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  have  preserved  their  flesh  pure, 
for  they  shall  become  the  temple  of  God. 

"Blessed  are  the  ascetics,  for  to  them  God  will  speak. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  have  resigned  the  world,  for  they 
shall  forthwith  be  called. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  have  wives  as  though  they  had 
none,  for  they  shall  inherit  God. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  have  fear  of  God,  for  they  shall 
become  Angels  of  God. 

"Blessed  are  they  that  have  preserved  their  baptism,  for 
they  shall  rest  in  the  Father  and  the  Son. 

"Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain  mercy 
and  shall  not  see  bitterness  in  the  day  of  judgment. 


THE   NEW  LAW  AND   THE   OLD  215 

''Blessed  are  the  bodies  of  the  virgins,  for  they  are  well 
pleasing  to  God  and  shall  not  lose  the  reward  of  their 
chastity."^ 

The  contrast  between  the  apocryphal  and  the  genuine 
tradition  is  most  illuminating.  This  later  interpretation 
introduces  imperfect  ideals,  quite  inconsistent  with  the 
universality,  the  comprehensiveness,  and  spiritual  elevation 
of  the  words  of  Jesus. 

II 

If  our  Lord's  message  was  so  startling  in  its  novelty, 
what  was  to  be  its  relation  to  the  existing  order  of  things? 
He  recognized  that  His  message  was  something  new.  He 
describes  it  as  new  wine.  It  could  not  be  put  into  old 
bottles.  The  new  wine  would  burst  the  old  wine  skins. 
There  must  be  new  bottles  for  the  new  wine  of  the  Gospel. 
You  cannot  mend  the  rent  in  the  old  garment  by  sewing 
in  a  piece  of  strong  new  cloth.  If  you  do  the  old  cloth  will 
be  torn  even  more.  New  garments  will  be  necessary.^  Such 
metaphors  imply  that  Jesus  contemplated  as  the  result  of 
His  teaching  a  new  order  of  things.  The  old  order  was 
passing  away. 

Teaching  such  as  His  was  bound,  indeed,  to  stir  up  all 
sorts  of  questionings.  Practically  the  great  difficulty  arose, 
as  we  have  seen,  on  the  question  of  the  Sabbath.  Here 
was  something  which  touched  the  customs  of  ordinary  life 
and  the  most  cherished  prejudices  of  Judaism;  but  if  iso- 
lated as  a  practical  illustration,  it  was  really  only  the  result 
of  the  normal  teaching  of  Jesus.  The  question  must  in- 
evitably arise.  What  was  His  relation  to  the  law?  The 
law,  it  was  held,  was  the  greatest  thing  in  the  world.  It 
had  been  dehvered  to  mankind  by  God  Himself  through 
the  medium  of  angels.  Some  of  the  Rabbis  had  said  that 
the  world  was  created  that  the  law  might  be  kept.  The 
law,  it  was  believed,  was  obeyed  in  heaven  as  well  as  on 
earth,  and  the  heavenly  conclave  waited  impatiently  to 
know  the  judgment  of  the  Rabbis  on  the  problems  before 

1  Ada  Paiili  et  Theclae,  5,  6;  in  Tischendorf,  Acta  Apostolorum  Apoc- 
rypha, p.  42. 

2  Mk.  ii.  21,  22. 


2i6  THE   NEW  TEACHING 

them.^  If  that  were  so,  if  the  law  was  holy  and  just  and 
good,  how  could  it  ever  come  to  an  end?  The  will  of  God 
must  be  eternal.  How,  then,  if  the  teaching  of  Jesus  con- 
flicted with  it,  could  that  teaching  be  (as  He  claimed) 
divine? 

No  doubt  questions  like  this  often  arose,  and  St.  Matthew 
has  selected  for  us  various  and  apparently  conflicting 
sayings  on  the  subject.  Jesus  said:  "I  am  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil."  He  said:  "No  jot  or  tittle  of  the 
law  shall  pass  away  until  all  be  fulfilled."  He  said:  "Except 
your  righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."^ 

Our  critics  would  suggest  to  us  that  sayings  such  as  these 
represent  the  later  controversies  of  the  Church.  Clearly 
the  same  person  could  not  say  such  contradictory  things. 
Some  of  them  came  from  those  who  thought  that  the  whole 
law  should  continue  to  be  kept,  some  of  them  came  from 
the  Pauline  party.  Clearly  they  are  inconsistent  with  one 
another. 

But  another  point  of  view  is  possible.  If  there  were  two 
such  distinct  parties  in  the  Church,  does  it  not  suggest  that 
both  of  them  alike  might  have  reason  for  claiming  that 
they  represented  the  real  tradition  and  had  genuine  sayings 
of  Jesus  on  which  they  supported  their  claims?  Did  He 
not  often  put  His  teaching  in  u  form  which  was  puzzling, 
even  contradictory?  His  clear,  incisive  statements  were 
often  almost  paradoxical.  How  could  both  of  these  parties 
feel  that  they  were  loyal  to  their  Master,  if  they  had  not 
words  of  His  to  which  they  could  appeal? 

And  when  we  understand  His  teaching,  we  shall  find 
that  it  reflects  both  these  points  of  view.  We  shall  not 
understand  it,  unless  we  realize  that  it  was  just  the  whole 
of  the  Old  Testament  that  He  claimed  to  fulfil.  It  was 
owing  to  this  completeness  that  there  were  large  elements 
in  His  teaching  to  which  there  were  no  parallels  in  current 
Judaism.     The   Scriptures   as   a  whole   had   a  meaning   to 

^  On  the  authority  of  the  law,  see  Die  Lehren  des  Talmud,  by  Ferdinand 
Weber  (Leipzig,  1880),  chap.  viii. 
^  Mt.  V.  17-20. 


THE   NEW  LAW  AND   THE  OLD  217 

Him.  But  this  meaning  was  not  the  conventional  one, 
neither  was  it  anything  fanciful  or  allegorical.  It  was  a 
deep  spiritual  principle  that  underlay  and  inspired  the 
partial  manifestations  of  the  old  law.  It  was  the  new  law 
and  the  new  covenant  and  the  spirit  which  Ezekiel  looked" 
on  as  a  sign  of  the  Messianic  times.  So  He  said  that  He 
had  not  come  to  destroy  the  law,  but  to  fulfil  it;  He  said 
that  no  point  of  the  law  should  pass  away,  but  yet  that  He 
came  to  give  a  teaching  which  would  make  it  obsolete,  a 
righteousness  greater  than  anything  which  scribe  or  Pharisee 
had  found  in  it.  There  was  a  permanent  and  a  spiritual 
element  in  the  law,  and  that  He  preserved,  but  it  might 
mean  the  passing  away  of  much  that  was  temporary. 

It  is  this  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  makes  us  realize. 
The  author  of  the  First  Gospel  has  collected  together  for  us 
from  various  sources  illustrations  of  the  way  in  which  the 
new  teaching  comprehended  but  superseded  the  old.  Some 
of  these  illustrations  we  have  in  other  accounts  of  our  Lord's 
teaching,  such  as  His  method  of  dealing  with  the  law  of 
divorce  and  marriage,  and  they  are  all  consistent  illustra- 
tions of  one  principle.  They  are  introduced  by  the  words: 
"Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  to  men  of  old  time,  but 
I  say  unto  you,"  which  imply  that  Jesus  was  dehberately 
and  consciously  giving  a  new  law  to  expand  the  old,  or 
rather,  as  will  become  clear,  substituting  Hfe  for  law. 

When  we  come  to  examine  these  instances,  we  see  that 
they  lead  us  up  to  certain  profound  ethical  principles.  The 
old  law  was  a  system  of  rule,  admirable  in  character  as 
rules  go,  but  with  all  the  hmitations  of  such  a  system.  The 
new  law  was  one  of  principles.  The  old  law  forbade  murder; 
the  new  law  forbade  angry  thoughts.  The  old  law  forbade 
adultery;  the  new  law  forbade  evil  thoughts.  If  we  banish 
all  our  evil  and  impure  thoughts,  the  evil  actions  which 
arise  from  them  will  be  impossible. 

But  we  can  advance  further.  The  old  law  was  negative. 
Its  maxim  was  "Thou  shalt  not."  The  new  law  is  positive. 
The  old  law  said  "Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  the  new  law  says 
"Thou  shalt  love."  The  old  law  distinguishes  between 
those  who  have  done  good  to  you  and  those  who  have  done 
evil.     To  each  was   due   his  fitting   recompense.     It  was  a 


2i8  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

law  of  retaliation.     The  new  law  tells  us  that  all  mankind 
are  to  be  the  subject  of  our  affection. 

"Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said,  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  and  shall  hate  thine  enemy;  but  I  say  unto  you, 
Love  your  enemies,  and  pray  for  them  that  persecute  you; 
that  ye  may  be  sons  of  your  Father  which  is  in  heaven; 
for  he  maketh  the  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and  the  good,  and 
sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  the  unjust.  If  ye  love  them 
which  love  you,  where  is  the  merit?  the  publicans  also  love 
them;  and  if  ye  do  good  to  those  which  do  good  to  you, 
where  is  the  merit?  even  the  Gentiles  do  the  same."^ 

So  we  are  brought  to  the  great  Christian  precept  of  love. 
It  was  clearly  a  fundamental  part  of  our  Lord's  teaching. 
In  St.  Mark's  Gospel  we  are  told  how  a  scribe  asked  which 
was  the  first  commandment.  It  is  significant  that  the 
answer  is  given  in  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
The  first  commandment  was  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord 
our  God  is  one  God,"  and  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all 
thy  mind  and  with  all  thy  strength."  The  second  was, 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself."^  To  this 
St.  Luke  appends  a  parable,  which  probably  formed  one  of 
those  which  he  had  collected  to  illustrate  the  universal 
humanity  of  Jesus,  and  is  of  particular  interest  to  us  in 
this  connection.  The  scribe,  anxious  to  justify  himself, 
asked.  Who  is  my  neighbour?  a  very  apposite  question. 
There  follows  the  story  of  the  good  Samaritan,  the  particular 
point  of  which  was  that  the  Samaritan,  the  enemy  by  race 
and  religion,  exhibited  just  the  compassion  and  love  towards 
a  man  in  difficulties  which  the  priest  and  Levite  failed  to 
show,  and  that  thus  we  might  learn  that  the  obligations 
of  Christian  charity  transcend  race  and  creed.^ 

The  essence  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  that  all  command- 
ments may  be  summed  up  in  the  one  commandment  of  love. 
If  you  have  the  right  feelings  towards  other  men,  you 
inevitably  abstain  from  all  those  wrongs,  murder,  theft, 
adultery,  slander,  which  in  the  old  order  were  forbidden 
by  specific  enactments.  Now  it  is  of  deep  significance  that 
here,  as  almost  always,  our  Lord  draws  His  teaching  from 

^  Mt.  V.  43-47.  ^  Mk.  xii.  28-34.  '  Lk.  x.  26-37. 


THE  LAW  OF  LOVE  219 

the  Old  Testament.  It  is  certainly  remarkable  that  there 
should  be  found  in  it,  only  waiting  to  be  discovered  and 
drawn  forth  and  placed  in  its  proper  proportion,  the  more 
spiritual  rehgion  which  we  call  Christianity,  and,  we  might 
add,  it  is  equally  impressive  with  what  unerring  touch  our 
Lord  extracts  just  those  spiritual  principles.  But  the 
Hmits  within  which  the  rule  of  loving  your  neighbour  should 
prevail  were  either  not  fixed  or  fixed  only  in  a  narrow  way 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Its  teaching  imposed  spiritual  and 
humanitarian  rights  and '  duties  within  the  Hmits  of  the 
Jewish  nation.  There  was  indeed  the  broader  element  on 
which  Jesus  built  up  the  teaching  of  Christianity,  but  the 
natural  deduction  from  its  language  was  that  which  bid 
you  hate  your  enemies,  and  that  was  the  deduction  which 
the  Jewish  commentators  arrived  at. 

That  teaching  is  summed  up  by  the  great  Talmudic 
scholar,  Lightfoot,  as  follows: 

"Here  those  poysonous  Canons  might  be  produced 
whereby  they  are  trained  up  in  eternal  hatred  against  the 
Gentiles,  and  against  Israelites  themselves  who  do  not  in 
every  respect  walk  with  them  in  the  same  traditions  and 
rites.  Let  this  one  example  be  instead  of  very  many 
which  are  to  be  met  with  everywhere.  'The  heretical 
Israehtes,  that  is  they  of  Israel,  that  worship  idols,  or 
who  transgress  to  provoke  God:  also  Epicurean  Israehtes, 
that  is  Israelites  who  deny  the  Law  and  the  Prophets 
are  by  precept  to  be  slain,  if  any  can  slay  them  and  that 
openly;  but  if  not  openly  you  may  compass  their  death 
secretly  and  by  subtlety.'  And  a  Httle  after  (O!  ye  ex- 
treme charity  of  the  Jews  towards  the  Gentiles):  'But  as 
to  the  Gentiles  with  whom  we  have  no  war,  and  likewise 
to  the  shepherds  of  smaller  cattel  and  others  of  that  sort, 
they  do  not  so  plot  their  death,  but  it  is  forbidden  them  to 
dehver  them  from  death,  if  they  are  in  danger  of  it.'  For 
instance,  'a  Jew  sees  one  of  them  fallen  into  the  sea,'  let 
him  by  no  means  let  him  out  thence:  for  it  is  written.  Thou 
shalt  not  rise  up  against  the  blood  .pf  thy  neighbour:  but 
this  is  not  thy  neighbour.'  And  further:  'An  Israelite  who 
alone  sees  another  Israel i^te  transgressing,  and  admonisheth 
him,  if  he  repent  not,  is  bound  to  hate  him.'"^ 

^  Lightfoot,  Works  (London,  1684),  vol.  ii.,  p.  152,  quoting  Maimonides. 


220  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

The  Old  Testament  contained,  then,  the  germs  and 
principles  of  the  New,  but  it  did  not  teach  them,  and  this 
may  be  our  answer  to  the  question  as  to  the  originality  of 
our  Lord's  teaching.  Parallels  with  it  have  been  extracted 
from  many  and  varied  sources,  from  the  Rabbinical  writings, 
from  Greek  and  Roman  moralists,  from  Eastern  religions. 
And  these  bear  witness  to  the  reality  of  the  teaching,  and 
show  how  universal  is  the  recognition  of  the  power  of  love 
as  an  ethical  principle.  But  it  is  one  thing  to  recognize 
the  principle,  it  is  another  to  make  it  the  rule  of  conduct. 
It  is  one  thing  to  realize  its  power,  another  to  see  its  scope 
as  wide  as  humanity.  What  Christianity  accomplished  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  it  created  what  we  may  look  on  as 
a  new  word.  The  word  agape  had,  up  to  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  been  little  used.  From  that  time  onwards  it  is  the 
recognized  word  for  a  fundamental  principle  of  conduct. 
A  new  word  was  needed,  one  which  would  express  the  power 
of  a  pure  passion  without  that  element  of  sensuality  which 
must  always  be  found  in  eros  or  epithumia,  and  with  an 
element  of  emotion  which  is  hardly  present  in  philia.  But 
this  conception  of  the  principle  of  love  as  universal  and 
including  within  its  scope  all  mankind  had  a  wider  effect. 
It  inevitably  made  Christianity  the  universal  rehgion,  and, 
further,  it  created  the  conception  of  the  solidarity  of 
humanity.  All  barriers  of  race  and  language  must  ulti- 
mately vanish,  when  once  it  is  recognized  that  our  relations 
to  one  another  are  to  be  controlled  by  the  principle  of 
brotherly  love,  and  that  the  obligation  of  that  love  must  be 
extended  as  wide  as  the  human  race. 


Ill 
v/ 

The  Christian  ethical  system,  then,  is  based  on  "love," 
or,  as  it  was  called  by  our  forefathers,  "charity."  It  may 
be  interesting  to  compare  it  with  other  great  principles  in 
which  the  motive  of  human  conduct  has  been  sought. 

The  Greek  system  made  arete  or  virtue  the  ideal  of  con- 
duct. Its  word  for  good  was  kalos,  a  word  which  contains 
as  part  of  its  connotation  the  ideas  of  the  honourable  and 
the  beautiful.     The  highest  moral   conduct   to   the   Greek 


CHRISTIANITY  AND   ASCETICISM  221 

must  have  an  element  of  external  magnificence.  It  had  no 
place  for  what  was  common  or  vulgar.  The  virtue  of  a 
moral  act  performed  in  commonplace  surroundings  by 
those  of  no  account  would  count  little  in  their  estimation. 
To  die  for  your  country  would  be  glorious,  especially  if 
it  were  done  in  a  glorious  way.  To  sacrifice  your  life  for  a 
slave  or  a  person  of  no  account  would  be  absurd.  There 
is  no  need  to  eUminate  the  idea  of  beauty  from  the  highest 
morality;  it  is,  indeed,  part  of  it;  but  it  is  not  that  beauty 
is  moral,  but  that  the  moral  is  beautiful. 

Then  there  has  always  been  a  tendency  for  humanity  to 
base  morality  on  negatives,  to  make  abstinence  and  asceti- 
cism the  norm  of  conduct.  This  has  been  a  striking  charac- 
teristic of  many  Eastern  forms  of  religion,  and  has  often 
been  associated  with  a  dualistic  belief  in  the  evil  of  matter. 
This  tendency  has  in  varied  forms  invaded  the  Christian 
Church,  whether  it  is  that  of  abstinence  from  all  sexual 
indulgence,  as  in  the  days  of  the  early  Christian  Church, 
and  to  some  extent  in  the  mediaeval  —  an  abstinence  which 
was  often  a  natural  reaction  from  the  extreme  impurity 
of  the  surrounding  society  —  or  in  the  hard  morahty  of  the 
Puritans,  which  seems  to  have  been  a  reaction  from  the 
over-enjoyment  of  hfe  which  the  Renaissance  taught,  or 
in  the  singularly  meagre  morality  of  the  modern  temperance 
devotee.  There  will,  of  course,  always  be  an  element  of 
asceticism  in  the  highest  morality,  for  love  will  demand  self- 
restraint  and  self-sacrifice,  but  in  its  essence  the  ascetic 
motive  in  morality  as  an  end  in  itself  is  fundamentally 
non-Christian.  It  was  an  accusation  against  Jesus  in  His 
Ufetime  that  He  was  not  ascetic.  His  disciples  had  had  no 
rules  of  fasting  given  them.  He  Himself  (unlike  the 
ordinary  professed  religious  teacher)  was  ready  to  accept 
hospitality  of  a  very  mixed  character;  He  took  part  in  the 
marriage  feast;  He  did  not  shrink  with  horror  from  the 
professedly  immoral,  but  recognized  even  there  the  elements 
of  piety  and  devotion.  Jesus  Himself  notes  the  contrast: 
"Whereunto  shall  I  liken  this  generation?  It  is  like  unto 
children  sitting  in  the  marketplaces  which  call  unto  their 
fellows,  and  say.  We  piped  unto  you  and  ye  did  not  dance; 
we  wailed  and  ye  did  not  mourn.     For  John  came  neither 


222  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

eating  nor  drinking,  and  they  say,  He  hath  a  devil.  The 
Son  of  Man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and  they  say,  Behold 
a  gluttonous  man  and  a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  pubhcans 
and  sinners!"^ 

There  is,  in  fact,  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  just  that  element 
of  what  we  call  humanism,  an  interest  in  humanity  in  itself, 
which  is  so  often  absent  from  Eastern  religions  while  it  has 
been  fortified  in  Christianity  by  Hellenic  influence.  Asceti- 
cism alone  can  never  form  an  adequate  basis  for  conduct. 
It  creates  often  a  hard  and  unattractive  type  of  character. 
There  is  nothing  positive  about  it.  Christianity  demands'* 
positive  actions.  It  bids  you  do.  It  does  not  think  much, 
any  more  than  Jesus  did,  of  human  lapses.  It  thinks  of 
beneficent  actions.  The  ideal  is  the  man  who,  inspired  by 
the  love  of  God  and  man,  or  in  our  modern  language  by  a 
passion  for  humanity,  or  by  sympathy  with  the  sufferer,  is 
prepared  to  sacrifice  himself  for  what  is  good.  It  does  not 
care  for  the  house  swept  and  garnished,  but  for  the  living 
power  of  the  Spirit.  It  makes  a  man  strong  to  overcome 
the  temptations  of  the  flesh  by  the  ardour  and  enthusiasm 
of  Hfe  which  it  creates,  for  here  is  an  emotion  and  a  passion, 
and  not  a  rule. 

Another  great  ideal  that  has  inspired  human  conduct 
is  that  of  duty,  the  conviction  that  a  man  has  a  place  and 
work  assigned  to  him  in  the  world,  and  that  he  is  responsible 
to  God  and  to  his  fellow-men  for  fulfilHng  that  duty.  This 
we  look  upon  particularly  as  the  ideal  of  ancient  Rome,  and 
of  the  Stoic  philosophy,  at  any  rate  in  its  Western  form. 
It  is  depicted  for  us  by  Seneca  and  Epictetus  and  Marcus 
Aurehus.  It  has  created  and  attracted  many  great  minds. 
It  was  an  appeal  recognized  by  Jesus  Himself:  "I  must 
work  the  work  of  him  that  sent  me  while  it  is  day."^  The 
Christian,  of  course,  does  his  duty.  Duty  is,  indeed,  a  part 
of  love.  But  duty  by  itself  is  but  a  cold  and  bare  motive. 
It  does  not  rouse  our  enthusiasm  or  kindle  our  imagination. 
The  soldier  or  the  statesman  does  his  duty  to  his  country, 
not  only  because  it  is  his  duty,  but  because  patriotism,  the 
love  of  his  country,  stirs  all  his  emotions.  Loyalty  to  the 
Sovereign  has  often  made  hardships  and  self-sacrifice  easy 

*  Mt.  xi.  16-19;   Lk.  vii.  31-34.  ^  Jn.  ix.  4. 


THE  LOVE  OF  ENEMIES  223 

to  be  borne.  The  love  of  God  and  of  humanity  transforms 
the  burden  of  the  law  into  the  freedom  of  the  Gospel.  The 
supremacy  of  the  Christian  ideal  hes  in  the  fact  that  it 
marshals  our  emotions  on  the  side  of  righteousness. 

A  further  question  arises:  How  far  is  the  Christian  ideal 
a  possible  one?  Is  it  possible  in  this  world  to  carry  out 
consistently  and  sincerely  the  Christian  ethical  system?  Is 
it  one  which  would  practically  work  in  the  world  and  not 
produce  chaos?  Is  it  possible,  for  example,  to  love  our 
enemies?  Can  I  really  feel  the  emotion  that  we  call  love 
for  those  who  are  enemies  to  us  and  have  done  us  wrong? 
Our  Lord,  however,  explains  to  us  what  He  means:  we  are 
to  do  good  to  them  that  hate  us,  bless  them  that  curse  us, 
and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully  use  us.  Now  towards 
masses  of  men  we  can  hardly  have  the  emotions  which  we 
call  love,  but  we  can  (and  have  attempted  to)  treat  our 
enemies  justly.  Can  we,  further,  actually  love  an  enemy? 
That  is,  can  we  towards  the  individual  enemy  with  whom 
we  are  brought  in  contact  exhibit  feelings  of  sympathy 
and  compassion?  Can  we  help  him  when  he  is  suffering? 
Are  we  able  to  act  so  as  to  make  his  lot  an  easier  one? 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  again  and  again  it  has  been 
done.  Men  have  exhibited  such  conduct  both  towards  those 
who  are  enemies  to  their  country  and  also  to  personal 
enemies;  and  the  fact  that  it  has  so  often  been  found  possible 
has  done  much  to  mitigate  human  suffering.  Men  have 
learnt  to  check  and  restrain  resentful  feeling  towards  those 
who  have  injured  them.  In  rehgious  disputes  they  have 
sometimes  learnt  to  separate  resentment  against  error  from 
hatred  against  the  heretic.  All  these  things  have  been 
possible;  nor  is  there  any  reason  why  such  Christian  senti- 
ment should  not  prevail  more  widely,  except  the  imperfec- 
tion of  human  nature  and  a  widespread  disloyalty  to  the 
Christian  message.  It  is  not  that  the  Christian  ethics  are 
impossible,  for  they  have  been  tried  and  found  successful, 
but  that  people  do  not  like  them. 

A  second  difficulty  is  raised  by  the  law  of  non-resistance. 
Resist  not  evil.  Turn  the  other  cheek  also.  Give  up  thy 
cloak.  Give  to  him  that  asketh  thee.  How  impossible 
such  conduct  would  be!    If  we  were  to  act  like  this,  society 


224  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

would  quickly  come  to  an  end,  and  wrongdoing  would  be 
rampant.  The  strong  would  oppress  the  weak.  What 
would  happen  if  we  allowed  the  enemy  to  invade  the 
country  without  opposing  him,  and  the  forces  of  anarchy 
and  disorder  to  destroy  the  work  of  civihzation?  Such,  it 
is  claimed,  is  the  necessary  interpretation  of  these  words, 
and,  in  fact,  as  thus  interpreted,  they  have  been  made  the 
basis  of  a  scheme  of  hfe  by  Tolstoi.  With  great  insistence, 
but  without  an  equal  amount  of  argument,  he  claims  that 
here  is  a  definite  command  of  our  Master  which  must  be 
literally  obeyed.  He  would  maintain  that  if  the  use  of 
force  in  resisting  evil  were  done  away  with,  the  ideal 
Christian  society  would  be  created.  An  examination  of  this 
claim  will  be  of  value  in  enabling  us  to  understand  our 
Lord's'  methods. 

Throughout  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus  there  is  an  element 
of  paradox,  and  it  might  seem  of  exaggeration.  Sometimes 
His  commands  seem  mutually  contradictory.  But  if  they 
sometimes  seem  impossible  in  practice,  that  is  no  reason 
why  they  should  not  be  true  as  ideals.  The  Christian  rule 
of  marriage  is,  perhaps,  one  which  it  would  be  impossible 
to  impose  absolutely  in  a  state  of  society  such  as  exists  at 
present,  but  it  is  the  ideal  basis  of  a  happy  society  and 
may  well  be  the  self-imposed  rule  of  a  section  of  the  com- 
munity. No  one  can  Hve  without  taking  thought  for  the 
morrow,  and  it  would  be  wrong  to  try  to  do  so,  but  the 
less  a  man  is  troubled  with  worldly  forebodings  the  greater 
his  happiness  will  be.  Commands  such  as  these  cannot  be 
fulfilled  literally  now,  but  if  society  were  constituted  as  it 
ought  to  be,  it  would  be  easy  to  fulfil  them.  If  the  will  of 
God  prevailed  absolutely,  then  the  full  and  literal  fulfilment 
of  these  rules  would  be  normal.  Our  conduct  is  necessarily 
conditioned  by  the  state  of  society. 

How,  then,  can  we  act?  It  will  often  happen  that  in 
the  present  imperfect  condition  of  human  society  two 
principles  of  conduct  must  conflict.  Christianity  bids  us 
do  good  to  others;  it  therefore  bids  us  protect  the  weak 
and  suffering.  To  accomplish  that  I  must  take  the  necessary 
means.  That  implies  that  the  use  of  force  to  fulfil  our 
Christian  duty  is  necessary  and  legitimate.     But  it   still 


RELIGIOUS   DUTIES  225 

remains  true  that  the  gentle  answer  and  the  refusal  to 
resent  injury  are  often  among  the  most  efiEicacIous  means 
of  restraining  violence.  The  more  it  is  possible  to  act 
according  to  the  precept  and  example  of  Christ,  the  better 
society  will  become.  A  society  in  which  an  insult  demands 
a  duel  will  become  one  of  strife  and  evil  passions.  If 
adultery  may  be  justified  by  killing  the  injured  husband, 
it  is  the  bravo  that  will  benefit.  The  more  we  act  as 
Christians,  the  more  Christian  society  will  become;  and 
when  society  is  Christian  the  only  possible  rules  of  conduct 
will  be  Christian. 

IV 

The  practice  of  religion  has  always  been  associated  with 
the  performance  of  certain  external  acts  which  are  often 
looked  upon  as  its  most  essential  elements.  What  was  the 
relation  of  Jesus  to  such  acts? 

There  were,  it  must  be  remembered,  two  systems  of 
religion  in  Israel.  There  was  the  old  traditional  sacrificial 
system  which  was  bound  up  with  the  national  life;  but,  as 
since  the  reform  of  Josiah  and  the  exile  this  system  had 
been  confined  to  Jerusalem,  it  was  something  outside  the 
ordinary  religious  life  of  the  people,  certainly  in  districts 
as  remote  as  Gahlee.  Its  place  had  been  taken  by  the 
synagogue  system. 

We  have  reason  to  believe  that  our  Lord  as  a  loyal  Jew 
would  attend  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the 
greater  feasts.  Such  visits  are  recorded  in  St.  John's 
Gospel,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  other  Gospels  which 
could  make  such  visits  improbable.  But  there  is  Httle 
teaching  as  to  sacrifice.  He  expresses  his  approval,  indeed, 
of  the  scribe  who  said  that  the  love  of  God  and  of  our 
neighbour  is  much  more  than  all  whole  burnt  offerings  and 
sacrifices.  He  bids  the  man  who  would  present  a  gift 
before  the  altar  be  first  reconciled  to  his  brother,  and  then 
offer  the  gift  —  that  is,  moral  and  spiritual  duties  come  first. 

Again,  He  speaks  with  severe  condemnation  of  the  devo- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Pharisees  to  external  religion,  and 
this  condemnation  becomes  stronger  as  His  ministry  ad- 
vances.     The   ceremonial   washing    of    the   hands   and   of 


226  THE   NEW  TEACHING 

vessels,  the  distinction  of  meats  and  so  on,  are  of  little 
or  no  importance.  What  did  matter  was  the  state  of  a 
man's  heart  towards  God.  If  the  heart  was  good,  good 
things  would  come  out  of  it;  if  the  heart  was  evil,  evil 
things,  and  good  thoughts  and  words  and  actions  were  what 
mattered. 

In  the  ordinary  life  of  Judaism,  the  life  of  the  man  who 
had  been  brought  up  on  the  precepts  of  the  law,  there  were 
three  great  religious  observances  —  almsgiving,  prayer,  and 
fasting.  In  the  book  of  Tobit,  which  contains  the  best 
presentation  of  the  simple  religion  of  an  ordinary  Israelite, 
we  read:  "Good  is  prayer  with  fasting  and  alms  and 
righteousness.  A  little  with  righteousness  is  better  than 
much  with  unrighteousness.  It  is  better  to  give  alms  than 
to  lay  up  gold:  alms  doth  deliver  from  death,  and  it  shall 
purge  away  all  sin."^  There  was  a  tendency  to  exalt  alms- 
giving into  a  meritorious  act  which  might  bring  atonement: 
''This  money  goes  for  alms  that  my  sons  may  live,  and 
that  I  may  obtain  the  world  to  come."  "A  man's  table 
now  expiates  by  alms,  as  heretofore  the  altar  did  by  sacri- 
fice." "If  you  offer  alms  out  of  your  purse,  God  will  keep 
you  from  all  damage  and  harm."  The  value  of  alms  done 
in  secret  was  fully  recognized:  "He  that  doth  alms  in  secret 
is  greater  than  our  master  Moses  himself."^  But  there  is 
ample  evidence  of  ostentation  in  almsgiving,  then  as  now. 
Prayer  had  become  organized.  There  were  three  stated 
hours  of  prayer,  and  it  was  held  that  where  a  man  was 
there  he  should  pray.  This  was  the  occasion  or  the  excuse 
for  much  prayer  in  the  streets  which  might  become,  and 
often  was,  mere  ostentation.^  So  with  fasting:  "They  say 
of  Rabbi  Joshua  ben  Ananiah  that,  all  the  days  of  his  life, 
his  face  was  black  by  reason  of  his  fastings."  That  was 
from  the  ashes  he  put  on  his  head.  "On  the  day  of  ex- 
piation it  was  forbidden  to  eat,  to  drink,  to  wash,  to  anoint 
themselves."*    In  fact,  there  was  a  certain  inheritance  of 

^  Tobit  xii.  8,  9. 

*  On  Jewish  sayings  regarding  almsgiving  see  Lightfoot,  Works  (London, 
1684),  vol.  ii.,  pp.  153,  155- 

'  On  prayer  see  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.,  ii.,  156. 

*  On  fasting,  ibid.,  ii.  161. 


PRAYER  227 

ostentatious  customs,  and  the  dominant  religion  tended  to 
be  ostentatious. 

In  contrast  to  this,  Jesus  taught  that  rehgion  was  to  be 
something  inward,  spiritual,  and  sincere.  It  was  a  matter 
between  the  devout  soul  and  God.  He  did  not  lay  any 
stress  on  fasting.  Fasting  was  not  a  custom  of  His  dis- 
ciples; although  He  spoke  of  the  time  when  their  natural 
sorrow  after  He  was  taken  away  would  make  them  fast. 
In  fact,  people  were  not  to  fast  because  they  thought  they 
ought  to  do  so,  but  because  it  was  the  natural  expression 
of  their  religious  feehngs,  and  so  the  very  essence  of  it  was 
that  it  should  be  secret.  "Be  not  seen  of  men  to  fast,  but 
of  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret."^ 

On  one  occasion  we  are  told  how  He  watched  men  casting 
alms  into  the  treasury.  Many  that  were  rich  cast  in  much, 
but  a  poor  widow  cast  in  two  mites  that  make  a  farthing. 
Jesus  said  to  His  disciples:  "The  poor  widow  has  cast  in 
more  than  they  all.  They  cast  in  of  their  superfluity;  she 
hath  cast  in  all  that  she  had."-  It  is  the  sacrifice  involved 
in  the  gift,  and  not  the  amount,  that  matters.  So  here, 
again,  ostentation  is  condemned.  "Let  not  your  left 
hand  know  what  your  right  hand  doeth."^ 

The  rule  of  prayer  is  the  same.  Prayer  is  the  secret 
converse  of  the  heart  with  God.  "But  thou,  when  thou 
prayest,  enter  into  thine  inner  chamber,  and  having  shut 
thy  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in  secret.  And  thy 
Father  which  seeth  in  secret  shall  recompense  thee."^  But 
while  Jesus  laid  but  httle  weight  on  almsgiving  and  fasting, 
it  is  prayer  —  and  the  point  is  significant  —  that  He  looks 
upon  as  the  most  important  exercise  in  religion.  He  dwells 
continuously  on  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  "Ask  and  ye  shall 
receive.  Seek  and  ye  shall  find.  Knock  and  it  shall  be 
opened  unto  you."^  This  He  states  without  qualifications. 
"All  things  whatsoever  ye  shall  ask  in  prayer,  beHeving, 
ye  shall  receive."^  He  deduces  this  behef  from  the  Father- 
hood of  God.  Earthly  parents  will  answer  the  requests  of 
their  sons;  how  much  more  will  God  who  is  our  Father  in 
heaven?^ 

1  Mt.  vi.  18.  2  Mk.  xii.  41-44.  '  Mt,  vi.  3. 

*  Mt.  vi.  6.  6  Mt.  vii.  7.        ^  Mt.  xxi.  22.  ''  Mt.  vii.  11. 

16 


228  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

Like  so  many  other  of  Jesus'  maxims  these  statements 
are  made  in  an  extreme  and  almost  exaggerated  form.  We 
can  gloss  them  if  we  like,  and  He  also  could  have  done  so 
had  it  been  necessary,  but  that  was  not  what  He  was 
concerned  with.  What  He  aimed  at  was  to  impress  on  us 
that  we  are  in  the  hands  of  a  Father  in  heaven,  and  that 
in  our  prayers  we  tell  Him  our  most  secret  needs. 

Yet  the  right  spirit  is  always  assumed.  We  cannot  ask 
forgiveness  of  our  Father  unless  we,  too,  forgive.  We  must 
ask  in  faith,  and  faith  would  be  inconsistent  with  petitions 
which  would  only  show  our  faithlessness.  Our  prayer  must 
be  simple  and  sincere,  and  based  on  a  desire  to  fulfil  God's 
will.  That  is  what  Jesus  taught  His  disciples  when  they 
asked  Him  how  to  pray: 

''Our  Father,  which  art  in  heaven. 
Hallowed  be  thy  name. 
Thy  kingdom  come. 

Thy  will  be  done  in  earth,  as  in  heaven. 
Give  us  this  day  the  food  sufficient  for  our  needs. 
Forgive  us  our  trespasses,  as  we  forgive  our  trespassers. 
And  lead  us  not  into  temptation; 
But  deliver  us  from  evil."^ 

In  these  seven  short  petitions  He  sums  up  our  right 
relation  to  God:  His  fatherhood  in  heaven  —  that  is.  His 
transcendency  and  providence;  the  promotion  of  His  glory 
as  the  final  end  of  creation;  the  fulfilment  of  His  purpose 
in  the  coming  of  His  kingdom  —  that  is,  the  fulfilment  of 
His  will  in  the  world;  our  dependence  on  Him  for  our 
earthly  sustenance;  our  need  of  forgiveness  and  a  forgiving 
heart,  and  salvation. 

Throughout  our  Lord's  teaching  on  worship  and  the 
religious  life  there  runs  a  single  note.  In  the  place  of  the 
great  external  system  of  worship  which  had  been  built  up 
at  Jerusalem,  in  the  place  of  the  mass  of  formalism  and 
externalism  which  Pharisaism  had  come  to  be,  in  opposition 
to  the  meaningless  and  often  disgusting  ceremonialism  of 
the  heathen,  he  preached  a  religion  of  the  Spirit.  In 
St.  John's    Gospel  we   are   told  how  Jesus,  talking  to  the 

1  Mt.  vi.  9-13;    Lk.  xi.  2-4. 


WEALTH  AND   RICHES  229 

woman  of  Samaria,  told  her  of  the  higher  worship  which 
would  take  the  place  of  that  of  Jerusalem  or  Gerizim: 
''Woman,  believe  me,  the  hour  cometh  when  neither  in  this 
mountain  nor  in  Jerusalem  ye  shall  worship  the  Father.  .  ,  . 
The  hour  cometh  and  now  is  when  the  true  worshippers 
shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth:  for  such 
doth  the  Father  seek  to  be  His  worshippers.  God  is  a 
Spirit:  and  they  that  worship  him  must  worship  him  in 
spirit  and  in  truth."' 

We  are  not  able  to  say  whether  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel  had  here  a  tradition  which  has  not  been  preserved 
elsewhere,  or  whether  the  story  is  what  would  be  called  in 
Jewish  literature  a  "Midrash"  —  that  is,  a  story  written 
for  spiritual  and  religious  edification.  The  language  is 
certainly  that  of  a  later  time,  and  whether  the  story  be 
true  or  not,  the  teaching  has  been  translated  both  in  letter 
and  in  content  so  as  to  suit  later  ideals.  But  the  important 
point  for  us  is  that  the  story  correctly  interprets  the  spirit 
which  underlies  all  that  Jesus  taught  about  the  religious 
life,  whether  it  is  contained  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount, 
or  found  elsewhere  in  the  Gospels, 


The  essential  thing  in  life  Jesus  taught  was  righteousness 
and  sincerity  of  aim.  "If  thine  eye  be  single,  thy  whole 
body  will  be  full  of  light." ^  That  is,  if  your  mind  be  set 
on  the  true  end  of  life  and  pursue  it  without  any  mixed 
and  unworthy  motives,  your  life  will  be  right.  All  depends, 
not  on  a  number  of  particular  rules,  but  on  having  a  right 
principle  of  life,  and  pursuing  it  whole-heartedly. 

What,  then,  is  the  purpose  of  life?  To  most  men  wealth 
and  riches,  with  all  their  accompaniments,  were  the  only  aim, 
then  as  now.  Jesus  continually  emphasized  how  worthless 
such  an  aim  was.  "A  man's  life,"  he  said,  "consisteth 
not  in  the  abundance  of  the  things  which  he  possesseth."^ 
He  told  the  story  of  a  rich  man  whose  wealth  increased, 
who  pulled  down  his  barns  and  built  greater  ones,  who 
looked  forward  to  many  years  of  worldly  happiness:    "Soul, 

1  Jn.  iv.  21-24.  2  -^ii   vi,  22;    Lk.  xi.  34.  ^  Lk.  xii.  15. 


230  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

thou  hast  much  goods  laid  up  for  many  years;  take  thine 
ease,  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry."  But  God  said  unto  him: 
"Thou  fool,  this  night  thy  soul  is  required  of  thee.  Where 
shall  thy  treasure  be?"^  He  tells  us,  too,  of  the  rich 
young  man,  who  claimed  to  have  kept  all  the  command- 
ments: "One  thing  thou  lackest,"  said  Jesus.  "Go,  sell 
whatsoever  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasure  in  heaven:  and  come,  follow  me."^  "How 
hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  (or  that  trust  in  riches), 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."^  He  bid  men  lay  not 
up  treasure  upon  earth,  for  earthly  treasure  decays,  but 
in  heaven  where  there  is  no  rust  or  corruption,  and  He 
adds  these  words  which  show  the  significance  of  His  teach- 
ing. "  Where  your  treasure  is,  there  will  your  heart  be 
also."^  It  is  not  the  mere  possession  of  earthly  wealth  or 
the  acquisition  of  it  that  He  condemns,  but  the  harm  done 
to  a  man's  moral  nature  by  the  imaginations  of  the  heart 
being  set  on  the  wrong  things. 

It  is  not,  indeed,  the  enjoyment  of  wealth  that  he  is 
concerned  with,  but  the  anxious  troubling  about  worldly 
things.  We  are  not  to  be  over-anxious  about  our  life, 
our  food,  our  clothes,  our  personal  appearance.  We  ought 
not  to  be  always  wondering  what  our  future  will  be,  whether 
we  shall  have  enough  in  days  to  come.  These  are  not  the 
really  important  things.  "Sufficient  unto  the  day  is  the 
evil  thereof."^  We  are  told  how  once  Jesus  entered  a  certain 
village  and  was  entertained  by  two  sisters,  Martha  and 
Mary.  Mary  sat  at  Jesus'  feet  and  heard  His  word;  Martha 
was  cumbered  about  much  serving.  Martha  complained 
to  Jesus  that  she  was  left  by  her  sister  to  do  the  work  alone. 
"Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  her,  Martha,  Martha,  thou 
art  careful  and  troubled  about  many  things:  but  one  thing 
is  needful:  and  Mary  hath  chosen  that  good  part,  which 
shall  not  be  taken  away  from  her."^ 

If,  then,  all  these  things  —  food,  and  drink,  and  wealth, 
and  all  the  enjoyment  and  business  of  life  —  all  these  things 
which  seem  to  be  men's  natural  aims,  are  wrong,  what  is 
right?     The   answer   is,    "Seek    the   kingdom,"    and   if   we 

^  Lk.  xii.  19,  20.  2  Mk.  x.  21.  ^  Mk.  x.  23;   Lk.  xviii.  24. 

*  Mt.  vi.  21.  5  Mt.  vL  34.  ^  Lk.  x.  38-42. 


SEEK   THE   KINGDOM  231 

must  know  what  that  means,  we  may  for  the  present  be 
content  with  the  interpretation  gWen  by  St.  Matthew, 
"righteousness."^    That  must  be  our  aim. 

Now,  what  view  of  the  world  does  this  imply?  Does  it 
mean  that  we  are  to  live  an  ascetic  life,  indifferent  to  the 
hfe  of  the  world?  That  is  hardly  possible,  for  Jesus  Him- 
self did  not  give  us  an  example  of  such  a  life.  He  pursued 
His  work,  and  to  that  he  gave  up  everything,  but  He  never 
refused  or  objected  to  the  enjoyments  of  life  when  they 
came  to  Him.  It  was  one  of  the  accusations  against  Him 
that  He,  as  a  religious  teacher,  did  not  refuse  the  invitations 
of  the  rich  men  whose  reputations  were  so  doubtful.  "The 
Son  of  man  came  eating  and  drinking,  and  they  say.  Behold 
a  gluttonous  man  and  a  winebibber,  a  friend  of  publicans 
and  sinners."^  He  was  always  anxious  to  relieve  the 
distressed  and  to  heal  the  sick.  He  bids  us  use  our  wealth 
for  the  well-being  of  the  poor.  If  we  are  to  care  for  the 
earthly  well-being  of  others,  if  (as  Christianity  has  always 
done)  we  are  to  care  for  the  good  estate  of  the  poor,  it  is 
a  proof  that  material  goods  are  not  in  themselves  evil. 

Or  does  it  mean  that  Jesus  thought  that  the  great  day 
of  the  Lord  was  at  hand,  that  this  present  dispensation 
would  pass  away,  and  that  therefore  we  need  not  trouble 
about  mere  transitory  things?  The  only  thing  that  matters 
is  to  secure  an  entrance  into  the  kingdom  when  it  comes. 
This  problem  will  meet  us  more  fully  later;  at  present  it  is 
sufficient  to  ask  what  could  be  the  purpose,  if  this  was  all 
that  life  meant,  of  this  elaborate  teaching  about  human 
conduct  and  human  life?  It  is  true  that  our  Lord  and  His 
disciples  appear  to  have  Hved  without  any  thought  for 
worldly  things  at  all,  in  quite  a  literal  way;  it  was  the  right 
condition  for  their  work,  and  there  were  many  who  minis- 
tered to  Him.  But  did  Jesus  mean  everyone  was  to  do 
as  He  did?  It  has  been  maintained  that  He  did  and  in 
order  to  support  this  theory  all  the  teaching  iri  the  Gospels 
inconsistent  with  such  a  view  of  human  life  has  been 
ehminated.  But  surely  the  fact  that  such  an  elimination  is 
necessary  must  make  us  hesitate  to  adopt  such  a  theory. 
The  real  meaning  of  our  Lord  was  none  of  these  things, 

^  Mt.  vi.  ^$.  2  Mt.  xi.  19;   Lk.  vii.  34. 


232  THE   NEW  TEACHING 

but  one  which  harmonizes  with  all  that  was  most  funda- 
mental in  His  teachiiTg;  it  was  the  transcendent  importance 
of  spiritual  things  —  that  is,  the  fulfilling  of  the  will  of  God, 
and  this  will  was  righteousness.  We  find  it  emphasized 
in  the  story  of  the  Temptation:  ''Man  shall  not  live  by 
bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the 
mouth  of  God."^  It  is  this  principle  that  gives  a  meaning 
and  coherence  to  all  those  maxims  which  we  have  been 
discussing,  and  is  the  lesson  that  Jesus  Himself  lived  and 
died  to  give.  The  first  principle  of  life  must  be  to  fulfil 
God's  will  —  that  is,  do  right;  the  rest  does  not  matter, 
whether  it  comes  or  not.  Compared  with  this  all  earthly 
things  are  indifferent;  wealth,  pleasure,  comfort,  luxury  — 
to  trouble  about  these  things  does  not  bring  happiness,  but 
misery.  If  happiness  is  made  the  end  of  our  hfe,  we  shall 
not  attain  it;   if  we  do  not  seek  it,  we  may  have  it. 

For  the  promise  is  quite  explicit:  "Seek  ye  first  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness,  and  all  these  things 
shall  be  added  unto  you."-  Is  that  a  meaningless  promise? 
At  any  rate  it  is  not  isolated.  For  example,  in  St.  Mark's 
Gospel  we  read  how,  when  Peter  said,  "We  have  left  all 
and  followed  thee,"  Jesus  said,  "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you, 
There  is  no  man  that  hath  left  house,  or  brethren,  or  sisters, 
or  mother,  or  father,  or  children,  or  lands  for  my  sake, 
but  he  shall  receive  an  hundred  fold  now  in  this  time."^ 

Are  such  promises  to  be  looked  upon  as  meaningless? 
Are  they  inconsistent  with  the  Spirit  of  the  Gospel?  Or 
do  they  represent  a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Gospel 
and  give  the  reasons  why  it  is  good  news  for  mankind? 
The  answer  is  this:  The  first  condition  of  human  well-being 
is  that  we  should  fulfil  the  will  of  God.  If  we  are  too  eager 
for  the  acquisition  and  enjoyment  of  wealth,  we  shall  ulti- 
mately lose  all.  If  we  prefer  wealth  to  righteousness, 
wealth  will  ultimately  perish.  If  we  prefer  righteousness 
to  wealth,  it  will  be  the  gain  of  the  world.  If  the  world 
were  absolutely  righteous,  it  would  mean  the  highest  human 
well-being.  But  there  may  be  many  who,  to  attain  right- 
eousness,  may  have   to  sacrifice  everything.     Just  as   the 

1  Mt.  iv.  4;   Lk.  iv.  4.  "  Mt.  vi.  35;   cf.  Lk,  xii.  31. 

2  Mk.  X.  29,  30. 


THE   GOLDEN  RULE  233 

well-being  of  a  nation  can  only  be  attained  if  its  citizens 
are  willing  to  make  every  necessary  sacrifice  for  it,  so  the 
well-being  of  the  world  depends  upon  our  being  willing  to 
sacrifice  the  world  for  righteousness.  Each  man's  indi- 
vidual well-being  consists  in  the  pursuit  of  righteousness. 
If  he  sincerely  seeks  righteousness,  it  is  well  with  him, 
whatever  may  happen.  Other  goods  may  come  to  him, 
at  any  rate  the  well-being  of  the  world  will  be  increased. 

VI 

"All  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
unto  you,  even  so  do  ye  also  unto  them:  for  this  is  the 
law  and  the  prophets."^  Thus  Jesus  summed  up  the  rules 
of  practical  life.  This  Golden  Rule  had  long  been  taught 
in  the  negative  forms.  "What  thou  hatest  thyself,  do  to 
no  one,"  said  Tobit.^  That  which  is  hateful  to  thyself 
do  it  not  to  thy  neighbour:  this  is  the  whole  law,  the  rest 
is  commentary."     So  said  Hillel.^ 

It  is  most  significant  that  in  Christ's  words  we  should 
have  the  law  summed  up  in  a  maxim  which  had  its  source 
in  Judaism.  It  is  equally  significant  that  it  should  transcend 
previous  teaching  by  being  no  longer  merely  negative,  but 
positive.  Here,  indeed,  we  have  the  whole  essence  of 
Christ's  teaching.  It  is  not  anything  out  of  harmony  with 
its  historical  sources  and  their  development.  It  gives  us 
all  that  is  most  spiritual  in  the  Old  Testament.  That  Old 
Testament,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  also  the  source  of 
Rabbinism.  How  could  the  Rabbis  avoid  giving  much 
sound  moral  teaching  when  they  were  but  expounding  the 
word  of  God?  They  may  have  often  overlaid  and  concealed 
the  simpler  truths,  but  they  could  not  destroy  them.  It 
was  its  living  continuity  with  the  religion  of  His  own  times 
that  made  the  teaching  of  Jesus  so  suitable  for  those  who 
heard  it. 

But  it  always  transcends  its  source.  The  fundamental 
principle  of  Christian  morality  is  that  it  does  not  content 
itself  with  directions  as  to  what  is  not  to  be  done.    It  always 

1  Mt.  vii.  12;   cf.  Lk.  vi.  31.  ^  Tobit  iv.  15. 

'  See  above,  p.  81. 


234  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

lays  stress  on  what  we  are  to  do.  If  a  man's  inspiration  is 
love,  he  will  be  full  of  eagerness  to  do  all  he  can  for  those 
around  him.  But  what  is  to  be  the  standard  of  his  con- 
duct? How  can  he  know  in  what  way  to  exhibit  his  love 
to  others?  The  standard  given  is,  Do  unto  others  as  you 
would  they  should  do  unto  you.  Under  this  heading  will 
come  all  the  commandments,  and  given  as  it  is  in  this 
positive  form  it  is  not  only  a  rule,  but  an  inspiration. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  limited  to  acts.  Words  and  thoughts  also 
come  within  its  scope.  There  is  nothing  more  harmful 
than  the  hard  judgments  which  people  pass  on  one  another. 
In  judging  others  we  have  to  remember  ourselves.  "Judge 
not,  that  ye  be  not  judged.  For  with  what  judgment  ye 
judge,  ye  shall  be  judged."^  Nothing  is  more  evil  than 
over-censoriousness.  Do  we  wish  other  people  to  take  a 
lenient  view  of  our  faults?  Let  us  be  lenient  to  them. 
"With  what  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  unto 
.you."^  How  often  it  is  that  those  who  are  most  convinced 
of  the  defect  of  others  are  entirely  obHvious  of  their  own. 
"Why  beholdest  thou  the  mote  that  is  in  thy  brother's 
eye,  but  considerest  not  the  beam  that  is  in  thine  own 
eye?  Or  how  wilt  thou  say  to  thy  brother.  Let  me  pull 
out  the  mote  out  of  thine  eye;  and  behold  a  beam  is  in  thine 
own  eye?  Thou  hypocrite,  first  cast  out  the  beam  out 
of  thine  own  eye;  and  then  shalt  thou  see  clearly  to  cast 
out  the  mote  out  of  thy  brother's  eye."^ 

Here,  as  always,  we  notice  that  the  morality  of  Jesus 
is  not  limited  by  a  concern  with  actions,  but  because  it 
has  gone  down  right  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  life, 
therefore  it  deals  with  the  springs  as  well  as  with  the 
external  manifestations  of  conduct. 

VII 

We  have  attempted  to  sketch  the  "New  Teaching"  of 
Jesus,  as  it  has  been  depicted  for  us  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  and  in  other  records.  It  is  a  teaching  remarkable 
for  its  unity.  It  deals  with  human  life  and  its  conditions 
from  a  definite  point  of  view.     It  starts  from  a  belief  in 

1  Mt.  vii.  I,  2.  2  ji,ifi^  3  Mt.  vii.  3-5. 


THE  TWO   PATHS  235 

God  as  the  Father  of  mankind.  ''If  God  so  clothe  the  grass 
of  the  field  which  to-day  is  and  to-morrow  is  cast  into  the 
oven  shall  he  not  much  more  clothe  you,  O  ye  of  little 
faith?"  "Your  heavenly  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have 
need  of  all  these  things  before  you  ask  him."^  Mankind 
is  dependent  upon  God,  whose  relations  to  them  are  those 
of  a  loving  Father,  and  therefore  it  is  essential  to  their 
well-being  that  they  should  live  in  accordance  with  God's 
will.  God's  will  is  love  and  righteousness,  that  men  should 
love  Him  and  reveal  that  love  by  righteousness  and  love 
for  their  fellow-men. 

The  result  of  this  teaching  is  that  if  it  be  rightly  appre- 
hended, the  good  life  is  an  inspiration  and  not  a  burden. 
If  the  love  of  God  and  men  is  once  kindled  in  our  heart, 
we  do  all  that  we  ought  towards  God  and  men  alike  as  the 
natural  outcome  of  what  we  are.  All  the  strength  of  the 
purest  emotion  is  enlisted  on  the  side  of  righteousness,  and 
as  this  means  the  satisfaction  of  what  is  best  in  us,  we  in 
this  way  attain  the  end  of  our  being. 

There  are  two  ways,  two  paths  for  man.  The  one  is  the 
way  of  the  world,  the  other  is  the  way  of  life.  The  one 
means  making  worldly  success  the  motive  of  your  life, 
whatever  form  it  may  take  for  you,  and  pursuing  after  that 
with  anxious  care.  It  seems  attractive,  but  it  means 
ultimately  failure.  The  other  means  caring  for  the  things 
of  God  and  His  righteousness.  It  is  the  latter  which  brings 
man  his  highest  good.  The  worldly  man  and  the  righteous 
man  may  pursue  the  same  calling.  Both  alike  may  be 
statesmen,  or  merchants,  or  soldiers:  it  is  their  motive  and 
their  method  which  will  be  different. 

Now,  the  characteristic  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is  that  He 
bases  His  morality  throughout  on  these  principles.  Every- 
thing is  ultimately  referred  to  this  one  principle,  the  love 
of  God  and  man,  so  that  rules  and  laws  and  commandments 
become  unnecessary.  The  Christian  no  longer  requires 
directions  for  each  particular  action,  his  heart  and  his 
conscience  will  be  better  than  all  such  rules.  No  doubt 
experience,  wisdom,  and  knowledge  should  be  added,  and 
without  them  mistakes  will  be  made.    But  the  point  is  that 

^  Mt.  vi.  30-32. 


236  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

if  the  right  fundamental  principle  be  secured,  if  the  heart 
be  pure  and  the  eye  be  single,  the  details  will  be  quickly 
_^learnt. 

Such  is  the  moral  teaching  of  Jesus.  There  are  two 
further  questions  which  have  been  raised,  the  one  as  to  its 
authenticity,  the  other  as  to  its  originality.  It  might  seem 
at  first  sight  superfluous  to  discuss  the  first  question.  But 
it  has  been  maintained  that  this  teaching  represents  not  so 
much  what  our  Lord  taught  as  what  the  Church  devised 
for  the  instruction  of  its  members.  Now,  it  may  be  recog- 
nized (as  we  have  seen)  that  this  may  possibly  be  true  of 
the  codification  of  these  principles  which  we  have  in  St. 
Matthew's  Gospel,  and  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount 
may  in  that  sense  be  the  work  of  the  nascent  Church. 
That  is,  however,  a  very  different  thing  from  thinking  that 
the  subject-matter  does  not  come  from  our  Lord.  Yet  it 
is  maintained  that  at  any  rate  large  sections  of  the  sermon 
are  not  genuine.  There  is,  I  believe,  very  little  to  support 
such  a  contention.  It  must  be  noticed  in  the  first  place  that 
a  large  part  of  the  teaching  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  Gospel 
and  in  other  forms.  We  learn  the  same  things  in  St.  Luke 
and  in  St.  Mark.  We  find  it  in  parables,  in  incident,  in 
isolated  sayings.  Then  we  notice  further  that,  although 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  may  have  been  constructed  by 
putting  together  material  coming  from  different  sources 
and  spoken  on  different  occasions  in  our  Lord's  ministry, 
yet  there  is  a  remarkable  homogeneity  about  it.  We  have 
analyzed  its  fundamental  characteristics.  We  find  that 
they  permeate  the  whole  body  of  the  teaching.  Surely 
there  could  not  be  this  sort  of  uniformity  if  much  of  it  were 
unauthentic. 

Or  compare  it  with  the  teaching  reported  in  St.  Mark. 
This  is  much  more  fragmentary  in  character,  but  it  will  be 
found  to  cover  a  great  deal  of  the  same  ground.  It  often 
appears  not  as  definite  doctrinal  teaching,  but  in  the  form 
of  apparently  casual  remarks  forming  part  of  a  narrative. 
But  if  we  analyze  the  principles  implied  in  the  teaching 
in  St.  Mark,  we  shall  find  them  to  be  the  same  as  those  of 
the  sermon.  There  is  the  same  teaching  of  the  love  of 
God  and  man,  of  marriage  and  divorce,  of  riches  and  poverty. 


AUTHENTIC  AND   ORIGINAL  237 

The  duty  of  self-sacrifice,  humility,  and  self-abnegation  are 
emphasized.  Prayer,  forgiveness,  the  care  for  the  things  of 
God,  are  all  enjoined.  There  is  the  same  disUke  of  cere- 
moniahsm.  What  is  remarkable  about  the  Gospel  as 
contained  in  St.  Mark  is  that,  although  seemingly  so  frag- 
mentary, it  is  really  extraordinarily  complete  and  that, 
although  there  is  much  less  detail,  much  less  amplification, 
much  less  system,  it  teaches  us  Just  the  same  view  of  Christ's 
teaching  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  does.  I  do  not  feel 
any  doubt  that  in  every  substantial  and  important  point 
we  have  the  genuine  teaching  of  our  Lord. 

But  how  far  is  this  teaching  original?  Parallels  to  much 
that  is  contained  in  it  have  been  found  in  many  places: 
in  Plato,  in  the  Stoics,  in  Confucianism,  in  Buddhism.  If 
the  moral  principles  that  underlie  it  are  really  universal, 
it  is,  of  course,  quite  natural  that  there  should  be  much 
resemblance  between  what  Christ  came  to  teach  and  the 
highest  attainments  of  human  thinkers.  Christianity  could 
not  appeal  to  us  as  true  unless  it  harmonized  with,  even  if 
it  transcended,  human  experience.  But  having  admitted 
the  resemblance,  the  difference  is  real  and  striking.  Neither 
Platonism  nor  Stoicism  nor  Confucianism  nor  Buddhism 
are  Christianity.  There  are  vast  differences  between  it 
and  them,  and  no  one  of  them  seriously  claims  to  give  us 
a  system  of  life  and  morality  suitable  to  the  present  day.  If 
Christian  morality  is  thought  to  be  superseded,  it  is  not 
by  them. 

It  is  true  also  that  (as  we  have  seen)  parallels  to  the 
teaching  of  our  Lord  are  found  elsewhere  in  Judaism.  It 
has  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  are  sayings  of 
the  Rabbis  which  teach  the  same  lessons.  It  is  possible 
(but  hardly  probable)  that  fragments  of  Rabbinical  teaching 
have  even  crept  into  the  Gospel.  But  none  of  these  things 
interfere  with  the  profound  originality  of  the  whole  con- 
ception. As  Renan  says,  the  teaching  looks  very  different 
when  we  see  it  in  the  Gospels.  That  is  because  here  it  is 
part  of  an  harmonious  principle.  It  is  not  this  or  that 
ethical  rule  that  forms  the  essence  or  causes  the  originality 
of  our  Lord's  teaching,  but  the  new  point  of  view  —  funda- 
mentally   true    and    comprehensive.       Christian    morality 


238  THE  NEW  TEACHING 

excels  other  systems  of  morality,  not  because  it  gives  new 
rules  of  conduct,  but  because  it  places  all  conduct  on  a 
fundamentally  right  principle. 

The  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  was  signalized  by  a 
determined  attempt  to  challenge  the  supremacy  of  the 
Christian  moral  system.  It  is  associated  with  the  name 
of  Nietzsche,  perhaps  somewhat  unfairly.  At  any  rate  he 
has  supplied  in  the  expression  "Will  to  Power"  the  phrase 
which  perhaps  best  sums  up  its  characteristics.  Christianity 
is  described  as  a  slave  morahty.  The  specifically  Christian 
virtues  of  humility,  self-sacrifice,  self-abnegation  are  con- 
demned. Asceticism  in  all  its  forms  is  looked  upon  as 
damaging  to  human  life.  The  ideal  man  is  not  the  man 
who  is  good  to  others,  but  good  to  himself,  the  man  who 
can  assert  himself,  who  transcends  others  not  in  goodness, 
but  in  power,  who,  regardless  of  the  rights  of  others,  and 
indifferent  to  any  call  of  duty,  fashions  for  himself  his  own 
career,  and  wins  for  himself  what  the  world  has  to  give. 
Not  love  but  power  is  the  highest  motive  of  action. 

It  is  possible  that  to  a  certain  extent  what  Nietzsche 
revolted  from  was  not  Christianity,  but  certain  incomplete 
and  one-sided  representations  of  Christianity.  Asceticism 
is  not  Christianity.  Every  Christian  must  be  prepared  for 
the  most  extreme  self-sacrifice,  just  as  every  patriot  must 
be  ready  to  die  on  the  field  of  battle,  but  self-sacrifice  is  not 
Christianity  any  more  than  it  is  patriotism.  The  Christian 
is  humble  and  practises  self-abnegation,  not  because  he  is 
timid  or  servile,  but  because  he  must  respect  the  rights 
and  feelings  and  position  of  others.  There  are  often  occa- 
sions when  self-assertion  is  incumbent  on  him.  The  mistake 
has  come  from  making  subordinate  manifestations  a  sub- 
stitute for  what  is  supreme.  The  fundamental  principle 
of  Christianity  is  righteousness,  and  love  for  our  fellow-men. 
This  may  imply  asceticism,  self-sacrifice,  and  humihty; 
but  they  are  only  ways  of  self-assertion. 

But,  of  course,  the  will  to  power  is  fundamentally  opposed 
to  this.  For  it  means  the  assertion  of  your  own  will  without 
regard  to  right  or  justice.  It  is  maintained  that  as  the 
evolution  of  the  human  race  has  come  by  the  survival  of  the 
fittest,  it  is  not  the  man  who  bends  and  yields,  but  the  man 


EVOLUTION  AND   RIGHTEOUSNESS  239 

who  asserts  himself  who  will  survive,  and  therefore  nature 
demands  the  strong  man,  or  the  superman  (as  Nietzsche 
calls  him),  the  man  who  is  too  great  to  care  for  restraint. 

The  argument  really  begs  the  question.  Evolution 
teaches  the  survival  of  what  is  adapted  to  the  environment, 
and  the  real  question  is,  what  is  the  nature  of  our  environ- 
ment? If  the  world  be  the  expression  of  the  will  of  God 
and  God  be  righteous,  then  our  environment  is  one  in  which 
the  righteous  will  survive.  The  evolution  of  the  human 
race  has  been  a  development  of  morahty  which  seems  to 
show  that  the  environment  to  which  men  have  adapted 
themselves  is  moral.  That  has  also  been  human  experience. 
Ever  since  the  Greek  chorus  morahzed  on  those  who 
trampled  on  the  altar  of  justice  and  the  psalmist  spoke  of 
the  downfall  of  the  proud,  it  has  been  the  ultimate  ex- 
perience of  mankind  that  the  world  is  governed  by  moral 
principles.  If  this  be  true,  the  superman  of  the  modern 
world  will  go  the  way  of  the  proud  and  impious  of  the 
tragedian  and  of  the  psalmist.  Whether  the  events  of  the 
twentieth  century  have  supported  the  moral  revolt  of  the 
nineteenth,  time  must  judge. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

We  are  told  by  St.  Mark  that  the  beginning  of  Jesus' 
teaching  was  the  kingdom  of  God.  "And  after  John  was 
cast  into  prison,  Jesus  came  into  GaHlee  preaching  the 
Gospel  of  God:  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  at  hand:  repent  ye  and  beHeve  in  the  Gospel."^ 
When  He  ate  the  Last  Supper  with  His  disciples  He  said: 
"I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine,  until  that  day 
when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God."^  Throughout 
His  ministry  it  appears  to  have  been  the  expression  under 
which  most  commonly  He  summed  up  the  contents  and 
purpose  of  His  teaching.  What  did  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
or  (as  St.  Matthew  puts  it,  using  a  conventional  paraphrase) 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  mean? 


The  expression  is  taken  from  popular  religious  phraseology, 
Joseph  of  Arimathea  is  spoken  of  as  "looking  for  the 
kingdom  of  God."^  The  disciples  ask  our  Lord  after  the 
Resurrection:  "Dost  thou  at  this  time  restore  the  kingdom 
to  Israel?"'*  As  he  enters  Jerusalem  before  His  crucifixion 
the  people  greet  Him  with  the  cry:  "Blessed  is  the  kingdom 
that  cometh,  the  kingdom  of  our  father  David." ^  It 
would  not,  I  think,  be  any  exaggeration  to  say  that  all  the 
hopes  and  expectations  of  the  Jewish  people,  of  every  sect 
and  class,  were  expressed  by  this  word,  the  "kingdom." 
It  summed  up  for  them  all  that  Israel  had  waited  for  through 
all  the  centuries.  It  was  the  note  of  every  great  movement 
among  the  people.  When,  therefore,  the  call  sounded, 
"The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  it  inevitably  aroused 

1  Mk.  i.  14,  15.  -  iSIk.  xiv.  25.  •''  Mk.  xv.  43. 

*  Acts  i.  6.  ^  Mk.  xi.  10. 

240 


THE  KINGDOM   OF  DAVID  241 

a  stir  throughout  the  country.  But  what  did  the  people 
expect?    And  what  did  Jesus  mean? 

The  root  of  the  idea  goes  back  to  the  Old  Testament. 
It  is  not  the  least  remarkable  characteristic  of  the  people 
of  Israel  that  they  never  lost  their  hope  of  a  great  destiny 
for  the  nation,  and  that,  however  terrible  might  be  the 
misfortunes  that  they  had  to  endure,  their  faith  in  their 
future  was  never  extinguished.  From  quite  an  early  time 
they  looked  forward  to  the  revival  of  the  kingdom  of  David. 
Once,  under  a  ruler  whose  personal  character  exhibited  all 
those  traits  which  might  arouse  hero-worship,  Israel  had 
been  a  powerful  military  monarchy.  The  rule  of  David 
had  extended  from  the  frontiers  of  Egypt  to  the  River 
Euphrates,  and  Jerusalem  had  become  one  of  the  important 
cities  of  the  world.  The  greatness  was  transitory,  but  it 
created  an  ideal,  and  the  hope  of  the  kingdom  of  David 
never  failed.  "Then  shall  there  enter  in,"  said  Jeremiah, 
"by  the  gates  of  this  house  kings  sitting  upon  the  throne 
of  David,  riding  in  chariots  and  on  horses."^  Whatever 
might  be  the  misfortunes  of  Israel  this  hope  always  re- 
mained in  some  form  or  other.  It  encouraged  the  endurance 
and  aroused  the  aspirations  of  the  nation. 

But  there  was  another  ideal  which  superseded  or  trans- 
formed the  national  hopes,  the  sovereignty  of  God.  Two 
great  ideas  were,  in  the  religion  of  Israel,  associated  with 
Jehovah,  divine  sovereignty  and  righteousness,  testified  to 
alike  by  nature  and  by  human  society.  "The  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God  and  the  firmament  showeth  his 
handiwork."^  "The  Lord  hath  estabhshed  his  throne  in 
the  heavens  and  his  kingdom  ruleth  over  all."^  "All  thy 
works  shall  give  thanks  unto  thee,  O  Lord,  and  thy  saints 
shall  bless  thee.  They  shall  speak  of  the  glory  of  thy 
kingdom  and  talk  of  thy  power.  Thy  kingdom  is  an  ever- 
lasting kingdom  and  thy  dominion  endureth  throughout  all 
generations."^  Everywhere  God  was  supreme.  He  ruled 
over  the  world  of  nature  and  would  extend  His  sway  over 
mankind,  and  the  essence  of  his  rule  was  righteousness. 

These  conceptions  had  a  powerful  influence  on  the  ideal  of 

1  Jer.  xxii.  4.  *  Ps.  xix.  i. 

'  Ps.  ciii.  19.  *  Ps.  cxlv.  10-13. 


242  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

Israel.  The  hope  of  a  Davidic  kingdom  became  the  hope 
also  of  a  righteous  kingdom:  "Behold  a  king  shall  reign 
in  righteousness  and  princes  shall  rule  in  judgment."^  "I 
have  made  a  covenant  with  my  chosen.  I  have  sworn  unto 
David  my  servant  ,  .  .  strong  is  thy  hand  and  high  is  thy 
right  hand.  Righteousness  and  judgment  are  the  founda- 
tions of  thy  throne.  Mercy  and  truth  go  before  thy  face."^ 
The  future  kingdom  is  to  be  a  righteous  kingdom. 

But  there  is  another  Hne  of  thought  that  we  find  running 
through  the  history  of  Israel.  If  the  kingdom  was  to  be 
a  perfectly  righteous  kingdom,  could  any  earthly  king 
satisfy  the  condition?  Even  at  the  first,  the  kingly  ideal 
is  looked  upon  as  one  really  inconsistent  with  the  Divine 
purpose  of  the  nation.  It  was  remembered  that  there  had 
been  a  time  when  there  was  no  king  in  Israel.  It  was 
remembered  how  Samuel  the  prophet  had  warned  the 
people  of  the  evil  of  kingly  rule.  "The  Lord  their  God 
was  their  king."  So  at  a  later  period  the  future  of  Israel 
became  associated  among  many  of  the  devout,  not  with 
an  earthly  kingdom,  but  with  the  establishment  of  the 
theocracy.  "The  Holy  One  of  Israel  is  our  king."^  What 
men  looked  forward  to  was  the  renewal  of  the  covenant, 
a  change  of  heart,  a  new  law,  the  restoration  of  Divine  grace. 

God  might  be  the  king  of  Israel;  but  His  sway  was  not 
acknowledged  through  the  whole  earth.  So  the  further 
idea  grew  up  of  a  day  when  He  would  assert  His  authority 
over  all  mankind  and  establish  His  kingdom.  "In  that 
day  shall  the  branch  of  the  Lord  be  beautiful  and  glorious, 
and  the  fruit  of  the  land  shall  be  excellent  and  comely."^ 
"It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  root  of  Jesse, 
which  standeth  for  an  ensign  of  the  people,  unto  him  shall 
the  nations  seek;  and  his  resting  place  shall  be  glorious."^ 
With  this  day  will  come  not  only  righteousness,  but  happi- 
ness. "For,  behold,  I  create  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth.  ...  Be  ye  glad  and  rejoice  for  ever  in  that  which 
I  create:  for,  behold,  I  create  Jerusalem  a  rej'oicing,  and  her 
people  a  j*oy."^ 

^  Is.  xxxii.  I.  2  Ps,  Ixxxbc.  3,  13,  14. 

'  Ps.  Ixxxix.  18.  *  Is.  iv.  2. 

^  Is.  xi.  10.  *  Is.  kv.  17,  18. 


THE  VISION   OF  DANIEL  243 

The  latest  development  in  the  Old  Testament  of  these 
ideas  is  presented  to  us  by  the  book  of  Daniel.  As  in  other 
books  of  the  Maccabaean  period,  all  reference  to  the  house 
of  David  is  absent,  but  the  idea  of  the  Divine  kingdom  is 
prominent.  When  the  succession  of  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  is  depicted  in  the  image  of  gold  and  silver,  of  brass 
and  iron,  the  stone  which  destroys  them  and  becomes  a 
great  mountain  represents  the  kingdom  of  God,  "And 
in  the  days  of  these  kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up 
a  kingdom,  which  shall  never  be  destroyed,  nor  shall  the 
sovereignty  thereof  be  left  to  another  people:  but  it  shall 
break  in  pieces  all  those  kingdoms,  and  it  shall  stand  for 
ever."^  And  in  the  vision  of  the  Ancient  of  Days  we  are 
told  how  "the  kingdom  and  the  dominion,  and  the  greatness 
of  the  kingdom  under  the  whole  heaven,  shall  be  given  to 
the  people  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High:  his  kingdom  is 
an  everlasting  kingdom,  and  all  dominions  shall  serve  and 
obey  him."^ 

To  the  ideas  inherited  from  older  prophets  the  circum- 
stances of  the  Maccabaean  period  have  added  a  new  idea, 
of  which  there  had  been  intimations  perhaps  before,  but 
which  here  appears  for  the  first  time  quite  explicitly.  In 
old  days  the  future  of  Israel  had  been  the  only  problem, 
the  individual  was  not  considered.  But  gradually  the 
religious  development  and  the  eventful  history  of  the  days 
since  the  exile  had  made  religion  more  personal.  It  became 
no  longer  merely  the  fate  of  the  nation,  but  that  of  the 
individual  that  was  a  matter  of  moment.  When,  in  the 
days  of  persecution,  the  faithful  adherent  of  the  law  had 
died  for  his  faith,  it  was  felt  that  a  future  that  did  not  give 
to  such  a  due  reward  was  inadequate.  To  the  ideas  of 
the  kingdom  and  of  the  judgment,  is  added  that  of  the 
Resurrection.  Deliverance  is  for  everyone  whose  name  is 
written  in  the  book  of  life,  but  for  them  alone:  "And  many 
of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  shall  arise,  some  to  ever- 
lasting life  and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt."^ 

From  this  time  onwards  all  these  varied  hopes  continued 
to  prevail  in  Israel,  interpreted  in  many  different  ways. 
To    what    extent    the    expression    "The    Kingdom,"    "The 

^  Dan.  ii>  44.  *  Dan.  vii.  27.  ^  Dan.  xii.  2. 

17 


244  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

Kingdom  of  God,"  or  "The  Kingdom  of  Heaven"  was  in 
popular  use  is  a  matter  of  discussion.  It  has  been  held  that 
in  this  as  in  other  cases  Jesus  had  adopted  an  Old  Testa- 
ment phrase  and  given  it  a  distinction  and  importance 
which  it  had  not  possessed  before.  That  may  be  so,  but  I 
doubt  it.  It  was  a  Biblical  term.  It  certainly  was  used; 
and  it  seems  to  me  more  probable  that  it  was  the  form  in 
which  the  ideals  of  the  nation  were  normally  expressed. 


II 

In  what  way  did  the  Jews  think  of  the  kingdom?  No 
doubt  to  the  vast  majority,  and  especially  to  the  people  of 
Galilee,  it  presented  itself  in  a  crude  and  worldly  form.  It 
meant  the  restoration  of  Jewish  independence.  Under  the 
chosen  ruler  the  people  would  revolt  from  the  Romans; 
they  would  restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel;  they  would 
be  freed  from  alien  rule  and  alien  tax-gatherers.  Instead  of 
being  the  servants  of  the  Gentiles,  they  would  be  their 
masters.  It  was  a  dream  such  as  this  which,  at  the  time 
of  the  enrolment,  had  stirred  John  of  Gamala  to  found  the 
sect  of  the  Galilaeans.  It  was  this  ideal  which  had  stirred 
up  so  many  revolts,  and  which  finally  caused  the  whole 
nation  to  wreck  themselves  in  a  hopeless,  if  heroic,  contest 
with  the  military  power  of  Rome. 

But  this  ideal  of  a  temporal  sovereignty  r^ight  be  held 
also  in  a  lofty  and  elevated  form,  so  that  the  restored  king- 
dom might  mean  the  fulfilment  of  the  highest  ideals  of  the  old 
Israel.  In  this  form  it  presents  itself  to  us  in  the  Psalms 
of  Solomon,  an  apocryphal  collection  belonging  to  the  years 
that  followed  on  Pompey's  conquest  of  Jerusalem.  It 
mourns  over  the  fall  of  the  city  and  exalts  over  the  death  of 
the  conqueror,  an  event  which  is  described  in  picturesque 
language  inspired  by  national  hatred.  The  following 
passage  represents  the  most  brilHant  description  of  the 
national  hope:  "But  as  for  us,  we  will  hope  in  God,  our 
Saviour,  for  the  might  of  our  God  endureth  to  everlasting 
with  mercy.  And  the  kingdom  of  our  God  is  unto  everlast- 
ing over  the  heathen  in  judgment.  Thou,  O  Lord,  didst 
choose  David  to  be  king  over  Israel,  and  didst  swear  unto 


A  KINGDOM  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS  245 

him  touching  his  seed  for  ever,  that  his  kingdom  should  not 
fail  before  thee."  The  characteristics  of  this  kingdom,  a 
kingdom  under  a  son  of  David,  are  to  be  hoHness  and 
righteousness.  Jerusalem  is  to  be  purified.  The  ungodly 
nations  are  to  be  destroyed.  ''He  shall  gather  together  a 
holy  people  whom  he  shall  rule  in  righteousness,  and  shall 
judge  the  tribes  of  the  people  that  hath  been  sanctified  by 
the  Lord  his  God.  And  he  shall  not  suffer  iniquity  to  lodge 
in  their  midst;  and  none  that  knoweth  wickedness  shall 
dwell  with  them.  He  shall  purge  Jerusalem  and  make  it 
holy,  even  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  old.  So  that  the  nations 
may  come  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  see  his  glory,  bring- 
ing as  gifts  her  sons  that  had  fainted.  And  may  see  the 
glory  of  the  Lord,  wherewith  God  hath  glorified  her."  All 
this  will  come  because  God  is  king  of  Israel.  "The  Lord, 
he  is  our  king  from  henceforth  and  even  for  evermore."^ 

But  it  had  long  been  apparent  to  the  wiser  that  any  fulfil- 
ment of  the  hopes  of  Israel  which  rested  on  worldly  sover- 
eignty in  any  form  was  not  likely  to  be  attained.  Many 
had  even  come  to  hope  that  it  never  would  be  attained. 
The  military  monarchy  of  the  Maccabees,  after  the  first 
period  of  enthusiasm  and  high  ideals  was  over,  had  been  an 
outrage  on  the  religious  sense  of  the  nation.  No  restoration 
of  this  must  come.  How,  then,  were  the  hopes  of  Israel  to 
be  fulfilled?  There  were  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment which  spoke  of  the  "day,"  of  the  culmination  of  this 
period  of  the  world's  history,  of  the  coming  of  God  to  judge 
the  earth.  He  himself  would  intervene,  or  sometimes  this 
judgment  of  God  was  imagined  as  exercised  for  Him 
by  a  supernatural  being  who  represented  Him  and  who  as 
having  the  divine  Spirit  poured  out  on  Him  is  called  the 
Anointed  or  the  Messiah. 

This  expectation,  as  it  was  largely  the  product  of  the 
imagination,  might  be  held  in  a  great  variety  of  forms, 
but  there  were  certain  features  which  were  common  if  not 
universal.  It  was  believed  that  the  present  aeon  or  period 
in  the  world's  history  was  swiftly  drawing  to  its  close. 
The  wickedness  and  faithlessness  which  prevailed  were  a 
sign  that  the  judgment  was  at  hand.     But  before  the  end 

1  Psalms  of  Solomon,  xvii. 


246  THE  KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

came  there  would  be  worse  evils  which  were  sometimes 
described  as  the  birth  pangs  or  woes  of  the  Messiah,  the 
final  effort  of  the  powers  of  evil  to  assert  themselves,  the 
great  outburst  of  wickedness  before  it  should  be  destroyed. 
Then  would  appear  the  Messiah  or  the  Anointed  One.  He 
would  judge  the  world  and  sweep  away  all  wickedness 
and  evil.  The  old  order  would  come  to  an  end.  The  new 
world  would  begin. 

The  future  might  be  imagined  in  various  ways.  All  evil 
being  destroyed,  the  Messiah  might  take  away  all  those  that 
were  true  to  Him  to  His  heavenly  abode,  and  there  God's 
sovereignty  would  be  supreme.  Or  it  might  be  held  (as 
was,  in  fact,  often  the  case)  that  He  would  establish  on  earth 
a  kingdom  which  should  last  a  thousand  years,  when  the 
redeemed  would  enjoy  every  form  of  human  happiness, 
often  described  in  most  materiahstic  language.  Then,  at 
the  end  of  the  thousand  years,  would  come  the  second 
resurrection,  and  the  establishment  of  a  new  heaven  and  a 
new  earth.  This  double  picture  of  an  earthly  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah,  followed  after  a  long  period  by  a  heavenly 
kingdom,  really  arose  from  the  desire  to  reconcile  the  two 
different  forms  of  expectation,  the  one  looking  forward 
to  an  earthly  Messianic  kingdom,  the  other  to  a  future  Ufa 
in  heaven. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  find  any  coherency  or  consistency 
in  these  dreams.  The  importance  for  us  is  that  the  whole 
action  is  looked  upon  as  something  supernatural  and  catas- 
trophic. No  help  seemed  possible  through  any  ordinary 
human  channels,  the  forces  of  evil  were  too  powerful.  But 
God  would  avenge  His  people.  Suddenly  the  Messiah  would 
appear  from  heaven.  He  would  destroy  all  the  forces  of  evil 
and  establish  a  reign  of  righteousness.  "He  will  cause  the 
sinners  to  pass  away  and  be  destroyed  from  off  the  face  of 
the  earth,  and  those  that  have  led  the  world  astray.  With 
chains  shall  they  be  bound,  and  in  their  assemblage-place 
of  destruction  shall  they  be  imprisoned,  and  all  their  works 
vanish  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  from  thenceforth 
there  shall  be  nothing  corruptible."^  And  here  is  an  account 
of  the  future  kingdom:  "In  that  day  mine  Elect  One  shall 
1  The  Book  of  Enoch  (ed.  Charles),  kix.  27,  28. 


THE  SOVEREIGNTY  OF  GOD  247 

sit  on  the  throne  of  glory  and  shall  try  their  works,  and  their 
places  of  rest  shall  be  innumerable.  And  their  souls  shall 
grow  strong  within  them,  when  they  see  mine  elect  ones 
and  those  who  have  called  upon  my  glorious  name:  Then 
will  I  cause  mine  Elect  One  to  dwell  among  them.  And 
I  will  transform  the  heaven  and  make  it  an  eternal  bless- 
ing and  Hght,  and  I  will  transform  the  earth  and  make 
it  a  blessing:  and  I  will  cause  mine  elect  ones  to  dwell  upon 
it,  but  the  sinners  and  evil-doers  shall  not  set  foot  thereon. 
For  I  have  provided  and  satisfied  with  peace  my  righteous 
ones  and  have  caused  them  to  dwell  before  me."^ 

One  further  point  must  be  noticed.  As  is  usual  in  all 
such  imaginations  concerning  the  future,  much  is  expressed 
in  symbolical  language,  and  it  is  hardly  possible  to  know 
where  the  symbolism  ends  and  the  literal  presentation  begins. 
No  one  doubts  that  the  four  beasts  and  the  great  image  of 
the  Book  of  Daniel  are  S3mibolical;  how  far  was  the  vision 
of  the  Ancient  of  Days  intended  to  be  more  than  a  pictorial 
representation  of  spiritual  truths?  Some  of  the  greatest 
errors  in  theology  have  come  from  the  literal  and  dogmatic 
interpretation  of  what  was  intended  to  be  poetical. 

There  was  a  third  way  besides  the  expectation  of  a  great 
temporal  kingdom  or  the  apocalyptic  dream  of  a  new  earth 
in  which  the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  the  hope  of  Israel  were 
interpreted.  The  normal  meaning  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
is,  in  Aramaic,  the  sovereignty  or  rule  of  God  —  that  is.  His 
divine  rule  on  the  earth,^  Under  the  Rabbis  this  phrase 
was  largely  used  to  mean  the  acceptance  by  Israel  of  the 
rule  of  God  over  them.  "Before  our  father  Abraham 
came  into  the  world,  God  was,  as  it  were,  only  the  king  of 
heaven;  but  when  Abraham  came  he  made  Him  to  be  king 
over  heaven  and  earth." ^  At  the  Red  Sea  and  at  Sinai 
Israel  gave  allegiance  to  this  sovereignty  of  God.  "The 
proselyte  who  adopts  the  law  takes  upon  himself  the  sover- 
eignty of  heaven."^     To  read  the  Shema  was  to  take  upon 

1  Book  of  Enoch,  xlv.  3-6. 

^  On  this  conception  see  Dalman,  The  Words  of  Jesus  (English  Trans- 
lation, Edinburgh,  1902),  p.  gi  ff. 

^  Quoted  by  Dalman,  p.  96,  from  Siphre  Dt.,  113  (Fr.  134'^). 
*  Simeon  ben  Lakish  (c.  a.d.  260).    See  Dalman,  p.  97. 


248  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

oneself  the  yoke  of  the  sovereignty  of  God.  The  sovereignty 
of  God  belongs  therefore  to  the  current  age.  It  is  as  yet 
acknowledged  only  by  Israel.  It  is  Hmited  by  the  fact  that 
the  peoples  of  the  world  do  not  acknowledge  this  divine 
sovereignty.  The  final  consummation  will  only  come  when 
all  idolatrous  worship  shall  be  aboHshed  and  all  mankind 
shall  acknowledge  the  rule  of  God:  "Then  shall  God  alone 
be  absolute  in  all  the  world,  and  His  sovereignty  will  endure 
for  ever  and  ever."^ 

The  kingdom  of  heaven  may  thus  mean  the  acceptance 
of  God  as  your  sovereign  to  whom  you  personally  owe  alle- 
giance, as  one  to  whom  you  are  responsible  for  your  conduct 
on  earth.  It  may  therefore  be,  at  any  rate  to  a  considerable 
extent,  independent  of  any  question  of  earthly  sovereignty 
and  dominion.  It  would  mean,  therefore,  the  theocracy. 
It  meant  obedience  to  the  law.  Thus  "the  kingdom"  was 
possible  under  very  varied  earthly  conditions.  Many  of 
the  Chasidim  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees  seem  to  have 
been  quite  reconciled  to  foreign  domination,  provided  they 
were  allowed  the  free  exercise  of  their  religion.  Many  Jews 
of  the  Dispersion  did  not  feel  their  position  in  foreign  lands 
inconsistent  with  the  claims  of  their  religion,  provided  noth- 
ing was  done  to  prevent  them  from  keeping  the  law.  The 
restoration  of  Israel  was  perhaps  never  quite  forgotten  by 
any,  but  if  the  recognition  of  God's  sovereignty  was  attained, 
all  that  was  essential  would  be  secured. 

Such  were  the  different  forms  which  the  expectation  of  the 
kingdom  might  assume  among  the  Jews.  How  far  any  one 
of  them  was  held  and  in  what  circles  when  Jesus  preached 
is  a  more  difficult  enquiry.  That  in  Galilee,  as  has  been  said, 
for  the  great  mass  of  the  people  the  kingdom  meant  the 
restoration  of  temporal  sovereignty  there  can  be  little  doubt. 
This  was  always  hoped  for,  but  at  the  time  of  our  Lord's 
ministry  it  would  not  be  held  with  such  intensity  as  it  had 
been,  because  Herodian  rule,  however  unsatisfactory,  did 
remove  some  causes  of  friction.  But  what  form  did  the 
hope  of  Simeon  take,  "who  looked  for  the  consolation  of 
Israel"?^  or  of  Anna  the  prophetess,  "who  spake  of  him  to 

^  Dalman,  p.  99,  from  Mechilta  (ed.  Friedmann),  56*. 
^  Lk.  ii.  25. 


THE  HOPE  OF  THE  KINGDOM  249 

all  those  who  looked  for  the  redemption  of  Jerusalem,"^ 
or  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  "who  also  hunself  was  looking 
for  the  kingdom  of  God?"^  Was  it  temporal  rule?  or 
the  apocalyptic  crisis?  or  the  extension  of  the  theocracy 
throughout  the  world?  We  have  not  really  adequate  evi- 
dence, but  my  own  opinion  would  be  that  at  this  time  the 
apocalyptic  hopes  were  somewhat  in  abeyance.  They  had 
been  strong  in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees,  they  became 
strong  again  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  The  expectation 
also  of  the  extension  of  the  divine  sovereignty  of  God 
throughout  the  world  by  the  nations  acknowledging  His 
Law  —  that  is,  the  conception  of  the  universality  of  God's 
will  without  sovereign  power  for  the  people  of  Israel,  was 
one  which  was  more  natural  to  Rabbinism  when  it  became 
organized  after  the  fall  of  Jerusalem.  Our  evidence  for  it  is 
for  the  most  part  late,  yet  it  is  the  development  of  a  thought 
which  had  always  existed  in  Israel.  The  mass  of  the  people 
would  hope  for  temporal  rule,  and  it  was  that  that  was  ulti- 
mately the  motive  power  of  the  great  revolt.  The  higher 
minds  would  hold  that  expectation  in  the  elevated  form  of 
the  Psalms  of  Solomon.  Some  few,  perhaps,  placed  their 
hopes  for  the  future  in  the  triumph  of  divine  law  and  right- 
eousness. 

Ill 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  when  Jesus  spoke  of  the  kingdom  of 
God  he  was  making  use  of  a  well-known  phrase.  It  came 
directly  from  the  Old  Testament.  It  was  probably  the  word 
which  would  best  express  the  ideals  of  the  day,  and  it  was 
part  of  the  recognized  religious  phraseology.  Everyone 
hoped  for  the  kingdom. 

But  in  what  sense  did  Jesus  Himself  use  the  phrase? 
On  this  point  there  have  been  differences  of  opinion.  Some 
would  interpret  it  in  a  purely  apocalyptic  sense.  Jesus 
thought  that  He  would  shortly  come  as  the  Messiah  from 
heaven,  and  would  destroy  all  evil  from  the  world  and 
establish  His  kingdom.  It  has  been  maintained  by  others 
that  the  kingdom  that  He  spoke  of  is  something  present, 

1  Lk.  ii.  38.  2  Mk.  xv.  43. 


250  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

that  it  did  not  mean  any  form  of  external  or  worldly  rule, 
but  the  divine  sovereignty  established  in  the  hearts  of 
men,  and  the  overthrow  in  that  way  of  the  kingdom  of 
evil.  A  third  explanation  would  be  that  the  kingdom  of 
God  meant  the  Christian  Church.  On  one  point  almost 
all  are  agreed,  that  Jesus  had  definitely  repudiated  the  idea 
of  any  earthly  kingdom  established  by  earthly  means. 
The  popular  expectations  of  the  people  of  Galilee  he  con- 
demned as  mistaken  and  wrong. 

The  difficulty  of  deciding  in  what  sense  Jesus  used  the 
term  is  increased  by  uncertainty  or  supposed  uncertainty 
as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  words  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  the 
custom  of  many  who  write  on  these  things  to  maintain  that 
any  recorded  saying  of  our  Lord  which  conflicts  with  their 
particular  view  represents  the  thought  of  a  later  time. 
The  method  is  a  simple  and  easy  way  of  evading  difficulties, 
but  as,  unfortunately,  there  is  no  agreement  as  to  which 
are  the  spurious  sayings,  the  uncertainty  must  remain. 
There  are  some  theologians  who  would  ehminate  all  passages 
which  demand  an  eschatological  explanation,  others  would 
eliminate  the  Church,  others  think  that  references  to  the 
kingdom  of  God  established  in  men's  hearts  represent  an 
elaboration  of  later  times.  How  arbitrary  all  this  is  is  shown 
by  a  statement  that  I  read  lately  to  the  effect  that  a  passage 
can  only  be  genuine  if  it  be  given  a  particular  meaning. 
Clearly  such  speculation  is  much  too  subjective.  There  is 
no  solid  basis.  The  proper  method  must  be  to  examine 
all  the  instances  recorded  of  the  use  of  the  expression,  to 
ask  what  they  mean,  to  see  whether  they  can  be  brought 
under  one  general  conception,  to  consider  whether  they  are 
inconsistent  with  one  another,  and  to  ask  whether  our  in- 
terpretation harmonizes  with  the  rest  of  our  Lord's  teach- 
ing. Only  after  we  have  done  that  may  we  eliminate  any 
incongruous  passages  as  unauthentic. 

It  is  clear  that  this  problem  of  the  kingdom  was  one  which 
caused  much  questioning.  Jesus  had  said  that  the  kingdom 
of  Heaven  was  at  hand.  But  when  would  it  come?  And 
how  would  it  come?  We  are  told  on  one  occasion  that 
certain  Pharisees  asked  "when  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh." 
And  it  must  have  been  in  answer  to  such  questions  that  the 


PARABLES  OF  THE   KINGDOM  251 

many  parables  which  begin  by  reference  to  the  kingdom 
were  spoken.  It  was  shortly  after  the  first  serious  breach 
between  Jesus  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities,  and  just 
after  the  appointment  of  the  Twelve,  that  we  find  Him  giv- 
ing definite  instruction  on  this  subject  and  in  the  form  of 
parables.  How  many  parables  he  dehvered  on  this  occasion 
we  cannot  say.  St.  Matthew  (as  is  usual  with  him)  takes 
the  opportunity  of  bringing  together  several  parables  on  the 
subject,  and  it  is  possible  that  St.  Mark  may  have  done  the 
same,  but  even  if  this  we^e  so,  the  fact  that  all  these 
parables  may  not  have  been  spoken  at  the  same  time  does 
not  necessarily  take  away  from  their  authenticity.^ 

Why  did  our  Lord  speak  in  parables?  The  obvious  answer 
to  give  is,  because  of  the  attractiveness  of  such  a  method 
of  exposition.  People  would  readily  come  to  hear  one  whose 
discourse  was  interesting  and  attractive  and  appealed  to 
their  imagination.  But  a  different  and  deeper  reason  is 
given  in  the  Gospel.  Jesus,  we  are  told,  said:  "Unto  you  is 
given  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom  of  God:  but  unto  them 
that  are  without,  all  things  are  done  in  parables:  that  see- 
ing they  may  see,  and  not  perceive;  and  hearing  they  may 
hear,  and  not  understand;  lest  haply  they  should  turn  again, 
and  it  should  be  forgiven  them."^  These  words  have  caused 
great  difficulties,  and  their  authenticity  is  now  widely  denied. 
It  is  said  that  not  only  this  statement  but  the  explanations 
which  are  given  of  the  parables  are  the  work  of  the  early 
Church,  if  not  of  the  Evangelist  himself.  It  is  maintained 
that  the  parables  are  quite  easy  to  understand,  and  that 
it  is  only  the  misconception  of  their  meaning  at  a  later  date 
which  led  to  the  production  of  the  elaborate  and  erroneous 
systems  of  interpretation  which  are  given  us.  It  is  un- 
fortunate that  when  we  turn  to  the  explanations  given  by 
these  modern  commentators  we  find  that  they  differ  among 
themselves  as  to  what  the  parables  do  mean,  and  this  will, 
I  am  afraid,  prevent  us  from  accepting  the  statement  that 
they  are  quite  easy  without  some  qualification. 

I  would  ask  you  to  consider  for  a  moment  the  circum- 
stances under  which  the  parable  of  the  sower  was  spoken. 
It  was  clearly  intended  to  reveal  the  mystery  of  the  kingdom. 
1  Mk.  iv.  1-34;   Mt.  xiii.  1-53.  2  mj^,  jy.  u^  12. 


252  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

The  expectations  which  Jesus  aroused  by  His  proclamation, 
by  His  teaching,  by  His  personality,  by  His  miracles,  had 
created  a  great  stir  among  the  people.  His  apparent  un- 
orthodoxy  must  have  accentuated  the  perplexity.  A  great 
crowd,  mostly  of  common  people,  had  collected  together 
anxious  for  explanations,  and  they  hear  a  story  of  a  man 
going  out  to  sow  seed.  What  bewilderment  this  must  have 
caused!  It  was  not  in  the  least  what  they  wanted  or 
expected.  They  wanted  to  know  when  and  how  the  king- 
dom would  come.  Was  Jesus*  shortly  going  to  lead  them 
against  the  Romans?  It  was  difficult  to  see  how  this  story 
could  answer  their  questions. 

Now  to  the  early  Church  there  would  have  been  little 
difficulty.  The  preaching  of  the  Word  was  something  they 
could  understand.  It  was  going  on  continually.  To  them 
the  meaning  of  the  parable  would  have  been  clear.  But 
to  the  multitude  by  the  sea,  eager  to  hear  of  a  real  kingdom 
being  established,  it  meant  nothing,  unless  there  were  some 
of  real  spiritual  understanding.  They  were  listening  to  a 
pleasing  but  enigmatical  story. 

But  this  and  other  parables,  spoken  either  then  or  at  a 
later  time,  taught  just  what  was  necessary.  You  ask: 
What  is  the  kingdom?  When  will  it  come?  The  kingdom 
of  heaven  is  now  come,  it  is  indeed  here,  but  you  are  not 
able  to  see  or  understand.  It  is  the  word  that  is  spoken.  It 
is  the  message  that  I  am  giving.  It  does  not  come  with 
power  or  might.  It  is  no  great  spectacular  event.  It  is  like 
seed,  which  only  brings  forth  fruit  if  it  fall  on  good  ground. 
The  coming  of  the  kingdom  depends  upon  the  growth  of 
the  Word  of  God  in  men's  hearts,  and  as  there  are  many  in 
whom  it  does  not  bring  forth  fruit,  the  kingdom  cannot  come 
speedily.  The  growth  of  the  kingdom  is  a  slow  and  secret 
process;  it  is  like  seed  growing  secretly.  What  happens  we 
cannot  see,  but  ultimately  the  plant  springs  up  and  flowers 
and  produces  its  seed,  and  so  the  consummation  is  reached. 
Its  beginnings  are  very  small,  but  little  by  little  it  will  become 
great  and  spread  throughout  the  world  as  the  small  seed 
becomes  the  great  Xree.  The  kingdom  is  the  word  of  God.  It 
is  God's  secret  process  working  through  a  long  period  of  time. 
It  is  the  little  community  growing  into  a  great  Church. 


PARABLES   OF   THE    KINGDOM  253 

Exactly  the  same  teaching  is  given  us  in  the  series  of 
parables  added  by  St.  Matthew.  What  more  appropriate 
parable  to  describe  the  growth  of  Christianity  in  the  world 
than  the  leaven  leavening  the  dough?  What  better  parables 
could  there  be  to  tell  us  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  some- 
thing which  is  not  primarily  to  make  a  show  in  the  world, 
but  is  a  personal  possession  of  unlimited  value,  than  the 
treasure  hidden  in  the  field  and  the  pearl  of  great  price? 
To  obtain  these  it  is  worth  while  to  give  up  everything. 

Two  more  parables  put  before  us  other  aspects  of  the 
kingdom.  Will  there  be  a  time  in  this  world  when  all  men 
will  do  righteously?  Will  the  kingdom  be  a  place  where 
there  are  no  traitors  or  disloyal  persons?  That  is  not  what 
we  are  to  expect.  Just  as  in  a  field  you  cannot  separate 
the  wheat  from  the  tares,  just  as  if  you  cast  a  net  into  the 
sea  it  will  be  filled  with  fishes  good  and  bad,  so  in  the  world 
the  sons  of  the  kingdom  will  have  to  live  side  by  side  with 
the  sons  of  the  devil.  It  is  only  at  the  end  of  all  things  that 
the  final  estabUshment  of  the  kingdom  will  take  place.  Then 
good  and  exdl  will  be  separated.  The  tares  will  be  burnt. 
The  bad  fish  will  be  cast  away.  So  the  angels  will  come  and 
sever  the  wicked  from  among  the  righteous,  and  cast  them 
into  the  furnace  of  fire,  but  the  righteous  will  shine  forth  as 
the  sun  in  the  kingdom  of  their  Father. 

If  we  sum  up  the  meaning  of  the  kingdom  of  God  as 
presented  in  these  parables,  there  seem  to  be  three  concep- 
tions, not  entirely  separate  from  one  another,  but  merging 
in  one  another.  The  first  is  that  the  kingdom  means  a 
principle  of  Hfe  and  conduct  in  men's  hearts.  As  such,  it 
is  not  something  which  is  to  come  in  outward  show  and 
splendour,  but  something  which  is  already  here.  It  is  a 
process  which  is  now  working,  not  a  new  revelation  to  come 
from  heaven.  So  it  might  be  described  as  Christianity  or 
the  Christian  dispensation,  the  new  state  of  things  inaugu- 
rated by  the  preaching  of  Jesus.  It  has  often,  secondly, 
been  interpreted  as  the  Christian  Church.  That  is,  I  beheve, 
too  narrow  a  meaning.  It  would  be  better  to  say  that  it  is 
Christianity  looked  on  as  a  great  power  or  process  working 
in  the  world,  of  which  process  the  Christian  Church  is  the 
definitely  visible  aspect.     But  this  does  not  exhaust  the 


254  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

thought.     There  is  a  third  point  of  view.     The  kingdom 
ultimately  will  be  the  final  consummation  of  all  things. 

It  has  been  maintained  that  here  we  have  three  different 
meanings  of  the  kingdom,  not  merely  different  aspects  of 
one  idea,  but  different  interpretations  belonging  to  different 
times  and  circles  of  thought.  All  are  more  or  less  incon- 
sistent with  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  belong  to  a  later 
period  in  the  Christian  Church.  Now  I  think  that  you  will 
admit  that  there  is  a  good  deal  of  difficulty  in  taking  this 
view  about  teaching  based  upon  parables  which  appear  to 
represent  the  most  individual  and  personal  utterances  of 
Jesus.  The  parables  are  a  part  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
which  it  is  most  difficult,  on  literary  grounds,  to  eliminate. 
In  order,  however,  to  investigate  the  problem  fully,  I  pro- 
pose next  to  examine  the  rest  of  the  evidence  of  the  Gospels 
bearing  on  the  kingdom,  then  to  consider  how  far  these 
different  aspects  can  be  looked  at  as  the  working  out  of  one 
idea,  and  finally  to  ask  whether  there  is  anything  in  the 
statement  that  they  are  impossible  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus. 

When  our  Lord  is  accused  by  the  Pharisees  of  casting  out 
devils  through  Beelzebub,  the  prince  of  the  devils.  He  asks 
if  Satan  be  divided  against  himself  how  his  kingdom  will 
stand.  And  then  He  adds,  "If  I  by  the  Spirit  of  God  cast 
out  devils,  then  is  the  Kingdom  of  God  come  upon  you."^ 
Here  the  conception  seems  clear.  There  is  a  kingdom  of  evil, 
the  working  of  which  is  revealed  in  all  the  sin  and  misery  of 
the  world.  If  a  power  has  now  been  revealed  in  the  world 
which  is  able  to  overcome  these  powers  of  evil,  it  means  that 
God's  sovereignty  is  already  being  asserted,  and  that  there- 
fore in  some  sense,  although  not  perhaps  in  its  most  com- 
plete manifestation,  the  kingdom  of  God  has  come. 

Again,  when  our  Lord  is  speaking  of  John  the  Baptist,  He 
says:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  there  is  not  among  those  born 
of  woman  a  greater  than  John  the  Baptist.  But  he  that  is 
least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he.  But 
from  the  days  of  John  the  Baptist  until  now  the  kingdom 

^  Lk.  xi.  20. 


MEANING  OF  THE   KINGDOM  255 

of  heaven  suffereth  violence,  and  violent  persons  ravage  it. 
For  all  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied  until  John."^ 
The  obvious  meaning  of  this  passage  seems  clear.  There 
are  two  dispensations.  The  one  is  that  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets.  This  has  had  its  consummation  in  John,  who 
was  more  than  a  prophet  because  he  was,  in  fact,  the  herald 
of  a  new  order.  Then  begins  a  new  dispensation  inaugurated 
by  Jesus  Himself,  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  in  it  God's 
rule  or  sovereignty  asserts  itself  in  a  wholly  new  way. 

Once  when  Jesus  has  been  speaking  of  the  futility  of 
ordinary  worldly  aspirations,  he  adds,  "Seek  ye  his  kingdom 
and  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you,"^  and  this  is 
explained  by  St,  Matthew,  "Seek  ye  first  his  kingdom  and 
his  righteousness."^  Here  seeking  the  kingdom  means 
adopting  a  certain  aim  in  hfe.  The  message  that  Jesus  has 
to  give  is  that  God's  kingdom  is  what  we  are  to  strive  for, 
and  the  explanation  is  righteousness.  God's  kingdom  means 
living  in  accordance  with  God's  law  of  righteousness. 

A  rich  young  man  came  to  our  Lord  and  said:  "Good 
Master,  what  shall  I  do  that  I  may  inherit  eternal  life?" 
After  answering  his  question  Jesus  said:  "How  hardly  shall 
they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is 
easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye  of  a  needle  than  for 
a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.""*  The 
comment  on  this  is:  "Then  who  can  be  saved?"  The 
kingdom  seems  here  to  be  used  in  an  eschatological  sense, 
not,  however,  of  the  sudden  appearance  of  the  Son  of  Man 
to  judgment,  but  simply  of  "eternal  life." 

"It  is  better,"  said  Jesus,  "to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  with  one  eye  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell 
fire."^  This  has  been  explained  in  the  preceding  verse  as 
"entering  into  life,"  and  the  life  is  one  which  is  not  con- 
fined to  life  hereafter.  The  expression  to  "enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven"  is  thus  often  used  of  "salvation."  The 
language  in  some  cases  seems  to  harmonize  best  with  the  Kfe 
here,  sometimes  with  the  hfe  hereafter.  It  is  not,  indeed, 
necessary  to  distinguish  too  carefully  the  two  ideas.     Life 

1  From  The  Discourses,  Mt.  xi.  11-13;   cf.  Lk.  xvi.  16. 

2  Lk.  xii.  31.  3  ]yjt_  yi.  2,:^. 

*  Mk.  X.  17-31.  5  Mk.  ix.  47;   Mt.  xviii.  9. 


256  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

begins  here  because  to  live  in  accordance  with  God's  will 
is  the  true  life,  and  life  hereafter  is  but  the  continuation, 
the  fulfilment  and  the  consummation  of  that  life. 

We  are  told  that  once  the  Pharisees  came  to  Jesus  and 
asked  him  "when  the  kingdom  of  God  cometh."^  Their 
expectations  may  have  been  of  an  eschatological  character, 
or  they  may  have  expected  the  establishment  to  an  earthly 
monarchy  and  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel. 
The  reply  that  Jesus  gives  implies  that  all  such  expectations 
are  erroneous,  and  based  on  an  imperfect  conception  of 
God's  purpose.  "The  kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with 
observation."  There  will  be  no  spectacular  and  dramatic 
action.  In  fact,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  already  here  in  your 
midst. 

Now  what  is  the  conception  underlying  all  these  varied 
usages?  St.  Matthew,  if  not  our  Lord  Himself,  has  given 
us  an  explanation.  In  the  Lord's  Prayer  we  are  bidden  to 
pray,  "Thy  kingdom  come,"  and  immediately  afterwards 
in  the  version  of  the  first  Gospel  are  the  words  "Thy  will 
be  done."^  The  kingdom  of  God  is  God's  sovereignty  or 
rule  and  that  means  the  fulfilment  of  His  will.  This  con- 
ception will  embrace  and  harmonize  all  the  varied  uses  which 
have  been  described.  Jesus  came  to  establish  a  kingdom. 
In  order  to  do  so.  His  plan  was  to  teach  people  to  live  in 
accordance  with  God's  will.  That  is  why  He  was  the 
preacher  of  righteousness,  that  is  why  He  laid  down  a  rule  of 
life  lofty  and  exacting,  and  yet  such  that  He  might  describe 
His  yoke  as  easy.  So  soon  as  this  preaching  begins,  the 
kingdom  of  God  begins  —  that  is  to  say,  the  assertion  of 
God's  sovereignty  against  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the 
kingdom  of  evil.  In  this  way  there  is  established  a  new  dis- 
pensation which  succeeds  to  the  old  and  therefore  will  take 
its  place  as  the  sphere  of  God's  sovereignty.  Into  this  king- 
dom only  those  may  come  who  have  acknowledged  God's 
sway  in  their  hearts.  All  such  may  be  said  to  have  life. 
But  the  life  here  is  only  the  beginning  of  a  life  which  is  to 
last  for  all  eternity.  The  kingdom  here  is  something  imper- 
fect and  incomplete.  There  will  be  a  time  at  the  end  of 
all  things  when  God's  sovereignty  will  be  universally  estab- 

^  Lk.  xvii.  20.  .  *  Mt.  vi.  10. 


VARIOUS   MEANINGS   OF   THE   KINGDOM     257 

lished   and   all   who   have   fulfilled   God's  will  will   inherit 
eternal  life. 

The  kingdom,  then,  meant  what  we  call  Christianity  or 
the  Christian  dispensation,  or  in  some  of  its  aspects  the 
Christian  Church.  When,  then,  our  Lord  began  His  minis  try- 
by  saying,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,  repent 
and  beheve  the  Gospel,"  He  was  using  language  which  might 
have  different  meanings  for  different  persons.  Some  might 
think:  "At  last  the  yoke  of  the  Gentile  will  be  cast  off. 
The  kingdom  of  our  father  David  will  be  established.  The 
chosen  people  will  once  more  be  free  and  independent  in 
their  own  land  and  will  triumph  over  the  Gentiles.  Jeru- 
salem will  be  the  centre  of  the  whole  earth."  Others  might 
think:  "The  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand.  The  Son  of  Man 
will  come  to  judgment.  A  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth 
will  be  estabHshed.  All  that  is  evil  will  be  condemned  and 
cast  into  Gehenna,  the  rich  and  wealthy  kings  of  the  earth, 
all  those  who  are  the  elect,  for  whom  it  is  prepared,  will 
enter  into  the  heavenly  kingdom  where  God  will  reign  with 
His  saints."  But  Jesus  did  not  mean  any  of  these  things. 
He  meant:  "I  am  come  to  teach  you  to  fulfil  God's  will.  I 
am  come  to  teach  you  the  true  righteousness.  I  will  sow 
in  your  heart  the  word  of  God.  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
kingdom  of  evil,  not  with  earthly  might,  but  in  the  spirit 
of  God.  This  is  the  kingdom  which  God  has  prepared  for 
you  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  It  will  not  come  sud- 
denly, but  slowly.  Its  growth  will  not  be  conspicuous.  It 
will  permeate  the  world  as  the  leaven,  but  gradually  it  will 
become  a  force  and  power  beneficent  throughout  the  whole 
earth." 


It  has  been  thought  that  the  conception  of  the  kingdom 
"of  God  which  has  just  been  sketched  is  not  possible  as  part 
of  the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  but  that  it  represents  the 
developed  conception  of  the  Christian  Church.  Jesus'  own 
conception  of  the  kingdom  was,  it  is  maintained,  purely 
apocalyptic;  He  expected,  it  is  said,  the  speedy  coming  of 
the  day  of  the  Lord.  At  first  He  thought  that  He  would 
come  as  the  Son  of  God  in  His  own  lifetime.     Then,  when 


2s8  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

in  that  He  was  disappointed,  He  began  to  realize  His  death 
must  come  first,  but  after  His  death  He  would  come  again 
soon  as  the  Son  of  Man  to  judge  the  world  and  estabhsh 
His  kingdom.  It  was  the  continued  failure  of  the  Parousia 
which  created  Christianity.  It  is  inconceivable,  it  is  said, 
that  Jesus  should  have  had  such  far-reaching  views,  and 
they  must  have  been  the  creation  of  the  Christian  Church. 
This  criticism  demands  some  consideration. 

What  is  the  result  of  the  examination  of  the  evidence? 
The  account  which  I  have  given  of  our  Lord's  teaching  is 
put  together  almost  entirely  from  what  are  generally  held 
to  be  the  earhest  portions  of  the  Gospel  narrative.  It  does 
not,  so  far  as  documents  can  help  us,  represent  a  later  de- 
velopment. Parables  and  sayings  of  our  Lord  which  repre- 
sent the  kingdom  as  present,  as  a  spiritual  process,  as  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  almost  as  the  Church,  occur  both  in 
St.  Mark's  Gospel  and  in  The  Discourses,  and  it  is  only  by 
explaining  away  the  obvious  meaning  of  these  passages  or  by 
maintaining  in  quite  an  arbitrary  way  that  they  are  un- 
authentic that  any  other  theory  can  be  maintained.  The 
exposition  that  I  have  given  rests  on  a  sound  critical  and 
exegetical  basis. 

It  will  be  convenient  next  to  examine  three  passages  in 
which  a  purely  apocalyptic  meaning  is  claimed  for  "the 
kingdom."  The  first  is  one  which  tells  us  of  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  with  power.  Shortly  before  the  Trans- 
figuration Jesus  said:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you  that  there  are 
some  of  those  standing  here  who  shall  not  taste  of  death 
until  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God  coming  with  power."  ^ 
That  is  how  the  passage  is  given  in  St.  Mark.  In  St.  Mat- 
thew it  is  given  a  more  definite  eschatological  turn  by  sub- 
stituting the  words  "until  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  coming 
in  his  kingdom."  We  know  that  among  some,  at  any  rate, 
in  the  ApostoHc  age,  the  Parousia  was  believed  to  be  close 
at  hand,  and  such  a  belief  has  often  prevailed  at  subsequent 
periods  in  Christian  history.  This  alteration  suggests,  then, 
that  there  was  a  tendency  to  modify  the  words  of  our  Lord 
in  an  eschatological  sense.  Now  it  is  maintained  that  here 
we  have  a  definite  prophecy  of  the  nearness  of  the  Parousia. 

1  Mk.  ix.  i;   Mt.  xvi.  28. 


THE   ESCHATOLOGICAL  INTERPRETATION     259 

There  is,  however,  nothing  in  the  words  themselves  to  com- 
pel such  an  interpretation.  The  kingdom  of  God  coming 
with  power  might  be  equally  well  exhibited  by  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit  in  the  Church, 
and  by  the  triumphant  march  of  Christianity  through  the 
world.  All  these  interpretations  would  harmonize  with  the 
conception  of  the  kingdom  put  before  us  in  the  parables  and 
taught  elsewhere  in  St.  Mark. 

A  second  instance  is  in  the  words  used  at  the  Last  Supper: 
*' Verily  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  no  more  drink  of  the  fruit  of 
the  vine  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom 
of  God."^  It  is  maintained  that  these  words  mean  that 
there  was  a  conviction  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  in  an  eschatological  sense  would  shortly  be  estab- 
lished. But  the  words  are  surely  intended  to  be  interpreted 
in  a  purely  figurative  manner.  We  know  that,  according 
to  one  strain  of  Jewish  expectation,  the  Messianic  kingdom 
was  looked  forward  to  as  a  time  of  materiahstic,  sometimes 
grossly  materialistic,  enjoyment,  and,  in  particular,  that  it 
was  spoken  of  in  terms  of  eating  and  drinking.  Jesus  occa- 
sionally adopts  this  type  of  language,  as  when  he  says  that 
many  shall  come  from  the  east  and  the  west  and  shall  sit 
down  with  Abraham  and  Isaac  and  Jacob  in  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.^  The  kingdom  is  represented  as  a  great  banquet. 
Now,  no  one  but  the  Chiliasts  of  the  early  Church  and  their 
even  less  intelligent  imitators  take  such  words  as  these  in 
their  hteral  signification,  and  clearly  the  words  of  the  Lord, 
so  far  as  speaking  of  the  Messianic  banquet,  would  not  be 
so  taken;  why,  then,  should  the  remainder  of  the  verse  be 
held  to  be  literal?  The  whole  passage  is  figurative.  Jesus 
is  taking  a  solemn  farewell  of  His  disciples.  His  earthly 
Ufe  is  over.  He  will  meet  them  again  w^hen  with  Him  they 
share  in  the  joys  of  the  heavenly  kingdom  in  its  final  con- 
summation which  is  eternal  fife.  Here,  also,  the  kingdom 
must  be  interpreted  as  in  other  places  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel. 

It  is  significant  that  in  The  Discourses  there  is  no  passage 
to  be  interpreted  in  a  purely  eschatological  sense.  The 
only  other  that  I  think  need  concern  us  comes  from  St. 
Luke's   account   of   the   Last   Supper:     "But   ye   are   they 

*  Mk.  xiv.  25.  2  Mt.  viii.  ii. 


26o  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

which  have  continued  with  me  in  my  temptations;  and  I 
appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom  even  as  my  Father  appointed 
unto  me,  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my 
kingdom;  and  ye  shall  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel."^  It  might  be  possible  (as  any  critic  would 
do  who  did  not  like  the  passage)  to  assert  that  this  as  being 
inserted  by  St.  Luke  came  from  a  later  source.  But  that  is 
not  necessary.  There  is  no  reason  for  thinking  it  not  genu- 
ine. St.  Luke  had,  if  not  a  second  history  of  the  Passion  and 
Crucifixion,  at  any  rate  much  fuller  information,  probably 
correct,  about  it.  This  passage  harmonizes  with  the  words 
following  the  institution  and  should  be  interpreted  in  the 
same  way.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  here  as  elsewhere 
Jesus  uses  language  such  as  was  common  in  Jewish  expecta- 
tion. Even  by  the  Jew  it  was  probably  regarded  as  figura- 
tive and  symbolical.  Jesus,  too,  used  it  in  that  way,  and 
a  passage  like  this  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  the 
rest  of  His  teaching. 

Now  let  us  ask  what  is  implied  in  the  suggestion  that  an 
insight  into  the  future  of  the  Christian  community  would 
not  have  been  possible  for  our  Lord.  It  is  maintained,  I 
suppose,  that  so  narrow  and  Hmited  were  His  ideals  that 
He  could  not  have  thought  of  the  Christian  community  as 
a  great  tree  which  filled  all  the  earth,  or  that  He  had  never 
pictured  to  Himself  a  new  world  in  which  good  and  evil  were 
mingled,  and  that  He  had  no  insight  into  the  power  of  God 
as  working  in  the  world.  Why  was  not  this  possible?  Jesus, 
we  know,  looked  upon  Himself  as  fulfiUing  all  the  expecta- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament,  but  He  always  interpreted  them 
in  their  most  spiritual  meaning.  In  Him  the  hopes  of  Israel 
attained  their  fruition.  Such  hopes  might  be  and  had  been 
interpreted  in  very  crude  and  worldly  ways,  but  if  anyone 
read  the  Old  Testament  with  spiritual  insight  there  could  be 
no  doubt  what  it  had  taught.  The  kingdom  there,  too, 
always  meant  the  sovereignty  of  God,  and  therefore 
righteousness.  In  all  ages  there  had  been  those  who  had 
recognized  this,  but  the  needs  and  circumstances  of  the  times 
were  such  that  they  could  never  make  them  effective,  nor 
had  they  the  power  to  do  so.    The  Chasidim  and  all  those 

1  Lk.  xxii.  29,  30;   cf.  Mt.  xix.  28. 


THE  VISION  OF  THE   KINGDOM  261 

writers  in  the  Psalms  who  cared  so  Uttle  for  any  external 
success,  provided  only  they  were  allowed  to  worship  God 
according  to  His  will,  had  held  such  views.  So  it  was  that 
Jesus,  grasping  all  that  was  most  spiritual  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  proclaiming  it  as  the  central  fact  of  His  teaching, 
saw  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  full  recognition  of  the  divine 
sovereignty,  as  the  fulfdment  of  the  di\dne  will  and  therefore 
righteousness. 

The  Old  Testament  had  seen  a  \^sion  of  the  nations  of 
the  world  flowing  to  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house,  and 
the  Gentiles  coming  to  see  His  light.  It  had  spoken  of  the 
word  of  the  Lord  going  forth  from  Jerusalem.  WTiy,  then, 
should  not  Jesus  have  thought  of  His  kingdom  extending 
throughout  all  the  world,  or  reahzed  that  His  teaching  must 
be  disseminated  in  one  way  only,  by  preaching  the  Word. 
The  existence  and  supremacy  of  all  such  ideas  must  depend 
upon  their  hold  upon  men's  hearts.  They  created  a  spiritual 
life.  Those  who  accepted  them  might  be  called  the  sons  of 
the  kingdom;  the  time  when  this  message  was  preached  rep- 
resented a  new  dispensation,  one  in  which  "the  kingdom 
would  pass  to  another  nation."  A  new  Israel  would  succeed 
to  the  old  Israel. 

Now,  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  this  should  not  have 
been  Jesus'  plan  or  purpose,  why  He  should  not  have  ex- 
hibited the  breadth  of  vision  and  the  far-reaching  outlook 
which  a  true  and  deep  spiritual  insight  into  the  Old  Testa- 
ment could  give  Him.  Could  anything  less  than  that  have 
created  Christianity? 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  for  thinking  that  such  ideas  could 
have  grown  up  in  the  Apostolic  age,  if  they  had  not  been 
inherited  from  Jesus.  This  new  conception  of  the  kingdom 
was  profound  and  far-reaching.  The  founder  of  a  religion 
is  he  who  has  the  creative  mind  which  enables  him  to  im- 
press himself  on  those  who  follow  him.  The  successors  are 
but  interpreters.  Apart  from  St.  Paul  —  and  we  know  that 
he  taught  something  quite  different  and  much  less  impressive 
—  and  in  a  certain  sense  perhaps  the  author  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  we  have  no  reason  for  thinking  the  men  of  the 
Apostolic  age  were  men  of  great  power  and  genius.  We 
know,  too  (of  this  there  can  be  little  doubt),  that  the  words 


262  THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD 

of  the  Lord  were  interpreted  literally,  that  a  common  belief 
was  the  speedy  coming  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  that  there 
was  a  tendency  to  modify  the  tradition  in  this  direction.  Is 
it  likely  that  in  these  circumstances  a  conception  would  be 
formed  of  the  kingdom  which  implied  this  far  vision  of  the 
future?  The  existence  of  the  teaching  of  our  Lord  as 
recorded  in  the  Gospels  will  account  for  all  the  different 
elements  of  the  ApostoHc  age;  it  is  not  what  the  primitive 
Church  was  capable  of  creating. 

But  the  decisive  argument  in  favour  of  the  correctness  of 
the  interpretation  that  I  have  maintained  of  our  Lord's 
use  of  the  kingdom  is  that  it  harmonizes  with  the  rest  of 
His  work  and  words.  This  will  become  clearer  the  further 
we  advance.  The  essential  point  is  the  harmony  between  the 
teaching  of  the  kingdom  and  the  new  law  of  righteousness. 
We  have  given  the  lesson  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
We  saw  that  it  implied  a  transformation  of  the  idea  of 
righteousness  so  profound  as  to  supersede  and  yet  fulfil  the 
ancient  law,  so  profound  as  to  mean  a  reconstruction  of 
human  ideals  and  ultimately  to  produce  a  change  in  all  the 
conditions  of  earthly  Hfe.  Now,  what  purpose  would  all 
this  have  if  the  final  end  of  all  things  was  to  come  im- 
mediately? Clearly,  it  would  be  a  futile  waste  of  labour. 
What  purpose  would  there  be  in  promulgating  a  universal 
morality  which  might  form  a  system  for  the  whole  world 
if  it  was  only  intended  to  be  taught  to  a  limited  number 
of  people,  mostly  Jews,  for  a  few  years  only?  The  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  if  correctly  understood,  means  the  preaching 
of  a  universal  Gospel  and  a  spiritual  interpretation  of  the 
kingdom. 

Finally,  we  know  how  a  later  generation  would  have  ex- 
pressed all  these  ideas.  We  have  in  the  Gospel  according  to 
St.  John  an  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  words  in  accord- 
ance with  the  teaching  of  a  later  age,  and  there  we  find  that 
the  "kingdom"  has  to  be  translated  into  a  language  more 
consonant  to  the  times,  and  the  phrase  used  is  "Hfe"  or 
"eternal  life,"  following  our  Lord's  own  pattern.  So  St.  Paul 
interprets  it  as  righteousness,  and  the  growing  Christian  com- 
munity when  they  wanted  to  contrast  the  old  dispensation 
and  the  new  began  to   talk  of  a   Christian  Church,  again 


THE   GOLDEN  AGE  263 

perhaps  following  indications  given  by  Jesus  Himself.  The 
teaching  of  the  Apostolic  age  is  the  natural  development 
of  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  expresses  itself  in  quite 
new  language.  The  transformation  of  the  Jewish  idea  of 
the  kingdom  must  be  the  work  of  Jesus  Himself. 

VI 

The  idea  of  the  kingdom  was  the  form  in  which  the  Jewish 
hope  of  a  golden  age  which  was  to  come  was  expressed. 
Such  an  expectation  of  a  golden  age  has  been  an  almost 
invariable  possession  of  every  nation  which  has  raised  itself 
above  the  level  of  unthinking  acquiescence  in  the  dull  routine 
of  normal  existence.  It  has  taken  many  forms  and  been 
adorned  with  much  poetry  and  romance.  To  some  it  has 
been  a  kingdom  on  earth,  to  others  it  has  been  a  kingdom 
in  heaven.  Some  have  thought  of  an  ultimate  time  when 
our  successors  and  descendants  in  generations  to  come  shall 
dwell  peacefully  and  happily  under  ideal  conditions  of 
human  Ufe.  Others  have  thought  of  the  city  in  the 
heavens  of  which  we  ourselves  with  all  others  who  have 
been  thought  worthy  of  it  will  be  the  inhabitants. 

This  life  of  the  future,  as  it  was  the  heritage  of  the  Jewish 
people,  held  by  some  worthily,  by  others  unworthily,  Jesus 
used  as  the  vehicle  ot  his  teaching  and  transformed  in  using. 
Into  the  new  conception  he  brought  everything  worthy 
which  Israel  gave;  he  eliminated  everything  national,  tem- 
porary, particularist.  He  said  the  kingdom  simply  means 
doing  God's  will.  "Whosoever  shall  do  the  will  of  my 
Father  which  is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  mother,  and  my 
sister,  and  my  brother."  It  was  neither  simply  earthly  nor 
simply  heavenly,  neither  simply  now  nor  simply  to  come, 
neither  simply  individual  nor  simply  social.  It  was  all  of 
these.    For  the  kingdom  was  wherever  God's  will  was  done. 

And  this  shows  us  the  one-sidedness  of  two  different 
interpretations  of  Christianity.  The  one  has  looked  only 
to  the  future  Kfe  of  the  individual.  It  has  thought  Httle, 
directly  at  any  rate,  of  human  Hfe  and  obligation  on  earth. 
It  has  placed  its  earthly  ideal  in  the  monastery,  and  earthly 
duty  merely  in  so  living  as  to  ensure  for  the  individual  eternal 
salvation.    Christian  altruism  and  the  performance  of  works 


264  THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD 

of  mercy  and  the  benefit  of  our  fellow-men  are  commended 
as  the  means  by  which  we  are  to  attain  the  kingdom  in 
heaven  which  is  eternal  life.  All  this  is  very  inadequate,  be- 
cause it  fails  to  realize  that  Christian  righteousness  and  love 
are  in  themselves  beneficial  here  because  they  benefit  human 
life,  that  the  life  here  is  in  itself  good  because  it  is  a  life 
lived  according  to  God's  will  and  just  so  far  as  it  is  that, 
and  that  the  happiness  and  human  well-being  which  come 
from  the  practice  of  righteousness  are  part  of  the  promise  of 
the  Father. 

But  there  is  another  perversion  which  comes  as  a  reaction 
from  such  Christian  other-worldhness.  It  is  felt  that  the 
material  well-being  of  our  fellow  human  beings  is  a  right 
ideal  for  us  to  seek.  Christianity  has  always  tended  the  sick, 
and  cared  for  the  orphan  and  the  widow,  and  relieved  the 
distressed.  It  is  only  carrying  out  such  an  ideal  in  a  modern 
way,  it  is  urged,  to  make  social  reform  the  main  object 
of  Christian  effort.  That,  it  is  maintained,  is  the  modern 
and  scientific  method  of  doing  what  Christian  charity  has 
always  aimed  at.  And  it  is  not  a  great  step  on  from  this 
to  identify  the  kingdom  with  the  particular  enthusiasm 
which  is  attracting  the  higher  minds  of  the  day.  All  this  is 
natural,  but  it  is  to  mistake  the  whole  meaning  of  Christ's 
teaching.  The  kingdom  is  not  merely  for  the  world  to  come. 
The  well-being  of  mankind  here  is  not  to  be  despised  or  set 
aside  as  something  Christianity  is  not  concerned  with.  But 
the  essence  of  Christ's  teaching  is  that  that  well-being  is 
not  to  be  sought  in  any  particular  form  of  polity,  whether 
the  divine  right  of  kings,  as  some  of  our  fathers  thought, 
or  the  establishment  of  democracy,  as  is  more  popular  at  the 
present  day,  or  the  social  revolution,  as  some  would  believe; 
nor  in  the  action  of  the  state;  nor  in  the  spread  of  educa- 
tion; nor  in  the  increase  of  material  wealth,  in  fruitful  com- 
merce and  wisely  organized  industry;  but  simply  in  each 
person  seeking  to  live  according  to  God's  will  and  act 
righteously.  If  we  all  do  that  other  goods  will  inevitably 
come.  This  is  the  secret  of  Christianity,  and  just  so  far  as 
the  world  has  accepted  it  has  there  been  real  human  pro- 
gress.   The  Golden  Age  comes  by  each  man  acting  rightly. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

The  Galilaean  Ministry  was  only  a  stage  in  the  work  of 
Jesus.  In  it  He  had  preached  and  exhibited  the  Gospel, 
but  not  the  whole  of  the  Gospel.  It  was  necessary  that  it 
should  come  to  an  end  in  order  that  He  might  attain  the 
triumph  of  His  ministry  and  the  whole  content  of  the 
Christian  revelation  be  revealed.  A  series  of  events  which 
formed  the  crisis  of  the  ministry  led,  it  might  seem  almost 
accidentally,  to  the  necessary  consummation. 

First  there  was  the  disappointment  caused  by  the  failure 
of  Jesus  to  respond  to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  They  began 
to  hope  that  the  Messiah  had  come,  but  they  found  that 
His  aims  were  very  different  to  anything  that  they  had 
expected.  An  attempt  at  something  hke  revolution  appears 
to  have  been  made  by  them.  Jesus  could  have  nothing  to 
do  with  this,  but  the  suspicions  of  the  authorities  were 
aroused.  If  Jesus  was  not  to  meet  at  the  hands  of  Herod 
the  fate  of  John  the  Baptist,  a  fate  which  would  have  left 
His  work  half  complete  and  have  deprived  it  of  its  power 
to  influence  the  world,  then  there  must  be  a  change  of 
method.  For  a  time  the  public  ministry  seems  to  have 
ceased.  Jesus  spent  some  months  either  alone  or  with  His 
disciples  in  a  wandering  life,  for  some  time  outside  Jewish 
territory,  and  always  outside  that  of  Herod  Antipas.  It 
has  been  reasonably  conjectured  that  this  period  was  devoted 
to  the  training  of  the  Apostles.  That  may  not  have  been 
true  of  the  whole  time.  At  the  end,  however,  we  find  Him 
accompanied  by  them,  and  their  training  reached  its  cul- 
mination in  the  confession  of  St.  Peter.  The  disciples  had, 
after  much  doubt  and  hesitation,  accepted  the  Messiahship, 
and  immediately  a  new  note  comes  in.  The  disciples  have 
now  to  learn  that  it  is  a  suffering  Messiah  that  has  been 
foretold.    They  have  to  learn  the  deeper  note  of  the  Gospel. 

265 


266  THE   CRISIS   OF  THE   MINISTRY 

Jesus  henceforth  looks  stedfastly  forward  to  the  end.  The 
time  has  come  when  He  must  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  claim 
His  kingdom  and  to  die. 


The  beginning  of  the  great  crisis  of  the  ministry  was  the 
mission  of  the  Apostles.  Whatever  opposition  there  may 
have  been,  the  success  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus  and  the 
influence  of  His  spiritual  power  became  daily  greater. 
Crowds  came  to  hear  Him.  Wherever  He  went  they  re- 
ceived Him  with  eagerness.  The  work  was  greater  than 
He  could  accomplish.  The  harvest  was  plenteous.  The 
labourers  were  few.^  For  some  time  now  the  Apostles  had 
been  associated  with  Him.  They  had  heard  His  preaching. 
They  knew  His  methods.  They  could  deliver  His  message. 
So  now  He  sends  them  forth  two  and  two  to  continue  His 
work.^ 

There  are  various  interesting  points  that  we  can  gather 
about  this  mission.^  It  was  only  for  Israel:  "Go  not  into 
any  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the 
Samaritans:  but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel."*  There  was  never  any  direct  address  to  Gentiles 
in   the  ministry  of  Jesus.     It  was  His  work  to  teach  the 

1  From  The  Discourses,  Lk.  x.  2;  Mt.  ix.  37. 

2  Mk.  vi.  7. 

'  The  "charge"  to  the  Apostles  presents  various  critical  problems  which 
can  only  be  conjecturally  solved.  There  are  four  versions:  (i)  Mk.  vi.  7-1 1. 
(2)  Mt.  X.  5-42.  (3)  Lk.  ix.  1-6  (taken  from  Mk.).  (4)  Lk.  x.  2-12,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Seventy.  St.  Matthew  makes  this  the  occasion  for  one  of  his 
long  conflate  speeches  in  which  he  puts  together  material  from  various 
sources.  One  of  these  was,  as  usual,  St.  Mark;  a  second  was  The  Discourses, 
from  which  came  also  Lk.  x.  2-12;  the  remainder  came  from  words  of  Our 
Lord,  used  on  other  occasions  which  might  seem  appropriate  here.  In  The 
Discourses,  the  words  here  quoted  were,  it  would  appear,  recorded  without 
the  occasion  on  which  they  were  delivered  being  mentioned.  St.  Matthew 
assigns  them,  probably  correctly,  to  this  occasion.  It  was,  in  fact,  a  second 
and  independent  report  of  the  charge  of  Our  Lord  narrated  in  St.  Mark.  St. 
Luke  appends  it  to  the  story  he  found  in  another  source  of  sending  out  the 
Seventy.  It  must  be  recognized,  however,  that  here  is  an  element  of  uncer- 
tainty in  this  reconstruction. 

*  Mt.  X.  s,  6.  These  words  probably  came  from  The  Discourses,  but  were 
omitted  by  St.  Luke  as  inconsistent  with  his  design. 


THE  MISSION  OF  THE  TWELVE  267 

Gospel  —  that  is,  to  teach  mankind  true  rehgion,  and  to 
proclaim  His  position  as  the  Jewish  Messiah.  The  expansion 
was  to  come,  not  through  any  direct  teaching  or  command 
that  He  gave,  but  through  the  inherent  force  of  a  religion 
which  was  universal  in  its  essence,  and  through  the  uni- 
versalis t  ideas  latent  in  Judaism. 

"  Go  your  way,"  He  said  unto  them.  "  Behold  I  send 
you  forth  as  lambs  in  the  midst  of  wolves."^  They  were 
to  go  forth  as  a  Sadhu  goes  forth  in  India,  with  just  one 
cloak,  with  sandals  on  their  feet,  and  with  a  staff  in  their 
hand,  but  with  nothing  else,  no  purse,  no  scrip,  no  money, 
no  food.^  They  were  to  enjoy  the  hospitality  and  live  at 
the  charge  of  those  to  whom  they  preached,  for  the  labourer 
was  worthy  of  his  hire.^  When  they  entered  a  house  it 
was  with  the  solemn  religious  benediction,  "Peace  be  to 
this  house,"  a  peace  which  would  settle  on  it  if  it  were 
worthy."*  There  they  were  to  stay,  not  wandering  from 
house  to  house  in  any  city  or  village  where  they  might  be, 
like  people  seeking  entertainment  or  amusement.^  Where 
people  received  them,  there  let  them  give  all  that  they  could. 
As  for  those  who  rejected  them,  it  would  be  more  tolerable 
for  Sodom  and  Gomorrha  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for 
that  city.^ 

The  burden  of  their  message  was  that  of  their  Master, 
"The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  and  like  their  Master 
they  also  proclaim  the  kingdom  by  their  spiritual  power. 
They  received  a  commission  from  Him  which  gave  them 
authority  over  evil  spirits.  They,  too,  like  Him,  could 
soothe  the  disordered  brain.  We  are  told,  also,  that  they 
anointed  the  sick  with  oil  and  healed  many. 

The  effect  of  this  mission  must  have  been  considerable. 
Up  till  now  the  authorities  might  ignore  what  Jesus  was 
doing.  His  activities  might  be  neglected.  He  was  but 
one  man.     He  might  arouse  a  certain  amount  of  popular 

^  From  The  Discourses,  Lk.  x.  3;   Mt.  x.  16. 

2  Mk.  vi.  8,  9.    St.  Mark's  version  is  clearly  correct. 

'  From  The  Discourses,  Lk.  x.  7;   Mt.  x.  11. 

*  From  The  Discourses,  Mt.  x.  12;    Lk.  x.  6. 

5  Mk.  vi.  10. 

^  From  The  Discourses,  Mt.  x.  15;    Lk.  x.  12. 


268  THE   CRISIS   OF   THE   MINISTRY 

enthusiasm  and  excitement,  but  it  had  all  been  on  a  small 
scale.  It  was  something  very  different  if  preachers  sent 
by  Him  should  be  travelling  through  the  country  with  that 
dangerous  cry,  "The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand."  It 
looked  like  real  revolution.  People  were  being  disorganized. 
The  time  would  come  when  they  would  rise  up,  as  they  had 
often  done  before,  to  follow  this  new  Messiah.  For  the 
people  of  Gahlee  were  always  turbulent.  There  was,  in- 
deed, a  good  deal  of  speculation  going  on.  People  were 
wondering  who  this  new  teacher  who  was  beginning  to  exer- 
cise so  great  an  influence  could  be.  Was  he  Elijah,  whom 
the  scribes,  following  the  words  of  the  prophet  Malachi,  said 
must  come  before  the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,  or 
was  it  a  new  prophet  that  had  arisen?^ 

It  is  this  situation  which  is  presented  to  us  by  the  narra- 
tive of  St.  Mark.  Herod  Antipas  heard  of  Jesus  and  of 
what  He  was  accomplishing.  He  had  had  to  deal  with  a 
dangerous  movement  like  this  once  before.  When  the 
crowds  collected  round  John  the  Baptist,  he  was  not  un- 
moved by  what  he  had  heard,  and  he  did  not  consider  it 
dangerous,  until  a  definite  attack  had  been  made  on  his  own 
conduct.  Even  then,  had  it  not  been  for  the  influence  of 
his  adulterous  wife,  he  would  not  have  proceeded  to  extreme 
measures.  Now  his  conscience  begins  to  work.  He  feels 
guilty,  and  thinks  that  John  the  Baptist  has  risen  from  the 
dead  and  is  continuing  his  work.  Righteousness  could  not 
be  destroyed  by  the  influence  of  power. 

It  is  probable  that  to  this  time  must  be  referred  the  words 
of  Jesus,  reported  by  St.  Luke,  in  answer  to  the  warning 
that  Herod  wishes  to  kill  Him.  The  warning,  we  are  told, 
came  from  some  Pharisees  who  desired  to  frighten  Him  away 
and  thus  check  His  activity.  The  answer  that  He  makes  is, 
"Go  and  say  to  that  fox,  Behold  I  cast  out  devils  and 
perform  cures  to-day  and  to-morrow,  and  the  third  day  I 
am  perfected.  Nevertheless  I  must  walk  to-day  and 
to-morrow  and  the  day  following;  for  it  cannot  be  that  a 
prophet  perish  out  of  Jerusalem."  This  implies  that  Jesus 
had  a  definite  conception  of  His  work  and  mission.    He  had 

^  Mk.  vi.  14-17. 


THE   RETIREMENT  OF  JESUS  269 

certain  things  to  accomplish.  He  must  carry  out  His  plan. 
He  did  not  fear  to  give  up  His  life,  but  His  life  must  not  be 
taken  until  He  was  ready.  Then  He  would  go  up  to 
Jerusalem.  For  the  present  it  was  necessary  to  be  careful 
and  avoid  danger.^ 

It  was  probably  not  long  before  this  that  the  murder  of 
John  the  Baptist  had  taken  place.  At  some  time  during 
the  Galilaean  ministry  disciples  of  John  had  come  to  Jesus 
with  a  message,  asking  who  He  was,  and  whether  the  hopes 
that  John  had  had  were  to  be  disappointed;  and  Jesus  had 
not  only  answered  the  question  in  a  very  striking  way,  but 
also  had  borne  testimony  to  John.^  Again,  when  John  was 
beheaded,  a  message  announcing  what  had  happened  had 
come  to  Jesus.^  It  was  a  definite  warning  of  what  He  was 
to  expect,  and  it  was  obvious  that  if  He  was  to  accomplish 
His  purpose.  He  must  take  precautions.  A  death  like 
that  of  John  the  Baptist  at  the  hand  of  Herod,  in  a  distant 
border  fortress,  would  have  been  a  disaster.  If  His  ministry 
was  to  be  accomplished  by  His  death  —  and  that  thought 
was  always  in  His  mind  —  it  was  in  Jerusalem  as  a  prophet 
of  Israel  that  He  must  die. 

So  as  soon  as  the  disciples  came  back  from  their  journey  — 
perhaps  even,  as  has  been  suggested,  their  mission  was  cut 
short  by  these  disquieting  rumours  —  Jesus  takes  them 
across  the  lake  to  a  place  where  He  knew  that  they  would 
be  in  safety.  St.  Matthew  definitely  tells  us  that  He  with- 
drew, because  of  the  message  about  the  death  of  John  the 
Baptist.**  St.  Mark  gives  other  reasons.  The  disciples  tell 
Jesus  everything  they  had  done.  He  bids  them  come  with 
Him  to  a  place  of  retirement  where  they  may  rest.  It  is 
quite  possible  that  they  were  elated  with  their  success  and 
the  crowds  about  them,  and  like  all  enthusiastic  followers 
were  contemplating  immediate  action.  But  Jesus  did  not 
want  immediate  action.  He  did  not  want  crowds.  He 
wanted  rest  and  time  for  contemplation,  and  an  opportunity 
to  train  His  disciples.  So  they  crossed  over  the  Sea  of 
GaHlee,  and  went  to  a  retired  place  on  the  other  side  at  the 

^  Lk.  xiii.  31-33. 

2  From  The  Discourses,  Mt.  xi.  2-19;   Lk.  vii.  18-35. 

^  Mt.  xiv.  12.  ^  Mt.  xiv.  13. 


270  THE  CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

foot  of  the  hills  in  the  plain  beyond  Bethsaida.  Here  they 
were  in  the  territory  of  Philip.  They  were  at  present  safe 
from  all  danger,  and  they  might  hope  to  be  free  from  the 
crowds.^ 


But  if  Jesus  sought  sohtude  He  could  not  easily  attain 
it.  Excitement  had  now  grown  great.  There  was  a  feeling 
abroad  that  the  time  had  come.  No  doubt  the  danger 
from  Herod  would  accelerate  matters,  and  the  people  would 
not  be  restrained.  They  saw  where  He  went  and  began  to 
flock  thither  from  all  the  villages  round.  No  doubt  the  word 
would  pass  from  one  to  another,  and  a  common  impulse 
would  lead  everyone  after  Him.  When  Jesus  came  down 
from  the  hill-side  where  He  had  retired  with  His  disciples, 
He  saw  a  great  multitude,  and  He  had  compassion  on  them 
because  they  were  as  sheep  having  no  shepherd.^  He  began 
to  teach  them  many  things  —  very  probably  St.  Luke  is  right 
in  adding,  about  the  kingdom  of  heaven.^  It  would  be 
teaching  which  they  would  not  altogether  understand  and 
might  quite  easily  interpret  incorrectly.  When  they  heard 
the  word  "kingdom,"  they  would  think  that  Jesus  would 
mean  what  they  meant. 

The  rest  of  the  story  shall  be  told  in  the  words  of  the 
Evangelist:  "And  when  the  day  was  now  far  spent,  his 
disciples  came  unto  him  and  said.  This  is  a  desert  place, 
and  now  the  time  is  far  passed;  send  them  away,  that  they 
may  go  into  the  country  and  villages  round  about,  and  buy 
themselves  wherewith  they  may  eat.  He  answered  and  said 
unto  them,  Give  ye  them  to  eat.  And  they  say  unto  him. 
Shall  we  go  and  buy  bread  for  two  hundred  denarii  and  give 
them  to  eat?  He  saith  to  them,  How  many  loaves  have 
ye?  go  and  see.  And  when  they  knew,  they  say.  Five  and 
two  fishes.  And  he  commanded  them  to  make  all  sit  down 
by  companies  on  the  green  grass.  And  they  sat  down  in 
ranks,  by  hundreds,  and  by  fifties.  And  when  he  had  taken 
the  five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes  he  looked  up  to  heaven 
and  blessed  and  brake  the  loaves  and  gave  to  his  disciples 

1  Mk.  vi.  31,  32.  2  Mk.  vi.  34.  ^  Lk.  ix.  11 


THE   FEEDING  OF  THE   MULTITUDE        271 

to  set  before  them;  and  the  two  jfishes  he  divided  among  them 
all.  And  they  did  all  eat  and  were  filled.  And  they  took  up 
twelve  baskets  full  of  the  fragments  and  of  the  fishes.  And 
they  that  did  eat  of  the  loaves  were  about  five  thousand  men."^ 

The  fourth  Gospel  tells  us  that  when  the  people  saw  the 
signs  that  He  did,  they  said,  "This  is  of  a  truth  the  prophet 
that  should  come  into  the  world,"  and  that  they  wanted  to 
come  by  force  and  make  Him  king.^  In  order  probably  to 
prevent  His  disciples  from  being  contaminated  by  such 
worldly  ambitions,  He  hurried  them  off  to  the  boat  to  go 
to  the  head  of  the  lake  to  Bethsaida.^  He  Himself  sent  the 
multitude  away  and  retired  to  a  mountain  to  pray. 

But  the  disciples  in  the  boat  were  not  able  to  accompHsh 
their  purpose;  a  strong  north  wind  was  blowing,  and  they 
could  not  reach  Bethsaida.  We  give  the  rest  of  the  narra- 
tive in  the  words  of  the  Evangelist:  "And  when  even  was 
come,  the  ship  was  in  the  midst  of  the  sea,  and  he  alone  on 
the  land.  And  he  saw  them  toiling  in  rowing,  for  the  wind 
was  contrary  to  them,  and  about  the  fourth  watch  of  the 
night  he  cometh  to  them  walking  on  the  sea;  and  he  was 
intending  to  pass  them  by.  But  they,  when  they  saw  him 
walking  upon  the  sea,  thought  that  it  was  a  ghost  and  cried 
out,  for  all  saw  him  and  were  troubled.  And  immediately 
he  talked  with  them  and  said  unto  them,  Be  of  good  cheer, 
it  is  I.  Be  not  afraid.  And  he  went  up  unto  them  into 
the  ship  and  the  wind  ceased.  And  they  were  sore  amazed 
in  themselves,  for  they  understood  not  the  loaves  for  their 
heart  was  blinded."^ 

The  result  of  the  contrary  wind  was  that  instead  of  having 
made  their  way  up  the  lake   to  Bethsaida,  they  had  been 

1  Mk.  vi.  35-44. 

2  Jn.  vi.  14,  15. 

^  According  to  the  ordinary  text,  St.  Mark  reads:  "He  constrained  his 
disciples  to  enter  into  the  boat  and  to  go  before  him  unto  the  other  side  to 
Bethsaida"  (vi.  45).  The  difficulty  of  ets  to  irtpav  is  that  Bethsaida  is 
not  on  the  other  side.  If  the  reading  is  kept,  we  must  interpret  it  to  mean 
"across  the  bay,"  or  in  some  such  way,  but  very  probably  we  should  omit 
els  TO  wepav  with  Syr  Sin  and  some  Greek  MSS.  supposing  it  had  come 
in  from  Mt.  xiv.  22  where  it  is  correct.  There  is,  however,  a  suspicion  that 
Syr  Sin  has  been  revised  in  the  interest  of  correct  geography. 

*  Mk.  vi.  47-52. 


272  THE  CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

blown  across  to  the  other  side,  and  landed  near  the  place 
whence  they  had  started  on  the  plain  of  Gennesaret.^ 
Here,  according  to  St.  Mark,  the  people  heard  of  His 
landing,  and  brought  the  sick  from  all  sides  that  He  might 
heal  them.  The  fourth  Gospel  tells  us  that  many  of  the 
people  from  the  other  side  had  come  over  in  boats  which 
had  come  from  Tiberias,^  and  gives  us  here  a  long  discourse 
which  is  represented  as  having  taken  place  in  the  synagogue. 
The  final  result,  according  to  that  Gospel,  is  that  "many  of 
his  disciples  went  back  and  walked  no  more  with  him." 

Such  is  the  narrative  as  we  can  reconstruct  it  from  our 
different  sources,  and  it  makes  a  consistent  and  coherent 
story,  but  there  are  a  series  of  points  which  demand  comment. 

The  first  is  the  statement  of  the  fourth  Gospel  that  the 
multitude  desired  to  make  Jesus  king.  It  is  this  that  gives 
a  meaning  to  the  whole  narrative.  To  lead  a  multitude  into 
the  wilderness  —  that  is  to  say,  into  the  scantily  inhabited 
mountain  district  beyond  Jordan  —  would  be  the  natural 
prelude  to  an  attempt  at  rebellion,  and  the  assertion  of 
claims  to  be  king  of  Israel.  It  was  what  Theudas  at  a  later 
date  attempted,  when  he  promised  that  the  waters  of  the 
Jordan  would  divide  to  allow  the  multitude  that  he  led 
to  pass  over.^  It  was,  as  we  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  what  the  Egyptian  did  when  he  collected  a  crowd 
in  the  wilderness  to  march  with  them  to  the  Mount  of 
Olives.^  Jesus  had  no  such  purpose,  but  here  were  the 
crowds  collected  together  on  the  edge  of  the  mountains. 
Could  He  not  now  be  persuaded  to  declare  Himself  the 
Messiah,  to  take  His  place  at  the  head  of  the  multitudes 
who  could  have  readily  followed  Him,  and  march  with  them 
to  Jerusalem  and  seize  the  kingdom? 

This  was  a  natural  desire  of  the  people.  It  was  equally 
obvious  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  whole  of  Jesus' 
purpose.  He  did  not  wish  them  to  raise  a  rebellion  in  the 
desert.  It  was  not  an  earthly  kingdom  that  He  desired. 
The  time  would  come  when  He  must  assert  Himself  as 
Messiah,  but  not  in  this  way.     Meanwhile  there  was  much 

1  Mk.  vi.  53.  ^  Jn.  vi.  23. 

'Josephus,  Antt.  xx.,  §§  97-99. 

*Acts  xxi.  38.    Josephus,  AntL,  xx.,  §§  169-172;   B.J.,  ii.,  §§  261-263. 


THE  FEEDING  OF  THE   MULTITUDE        273 

to  be  done.  If  our  Lord's  purpose  was  in  any  way  what 
we  have  gathered  it  to  be  from  the  Gospels,  there  was 
clearly  need  for  His  disciples  to  learn  much  more.  They 
must  learn  somehow  to  keep  free  from  all  these  worldly 
complications,  and  yet  recognize  His  Messianic  office.  It 
was  necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  check  poUtical  aims, 
that  the  disciples  should  be  removed  as  quickly  as  possible, 
and  that  a  period  of  silence,  which  on  all  grounds  was 
demanded  should  begin.  It  is  significant  that  the  place  to 
which  he  desired  them  to  go  was  Bethsaida,  outside  the 
territory  of  Herod  Antipas. 

The  result  as  regards  the  enthusiasm  of  His  followers 
was  that  it  was  for  a  time  checked.  Jesus  had  disappointed 
them.  He  had  spoken  of  a  kingdom;  but  when  He  was 
offered  it  by  a  great  body  of  enthusiastic,  even  fanatical, 
Galilaeans,  who  as  little  on  this  occasion  as  on  any  other 
thought  of  consequences.  He  refused.  So  people  began  to 
lose  faith  in  Him.^ 

But  now  we  come  to  a  second  and  more  difficult  question. 
What  really  happened?  The  narrative  of  St.  ]\Iark  gives, 
in  vivid  and  picturesque  language,  the  story  of  an  event 
which  has  all  the  appearance  of  having  been  miraculous,  and 
has  been  so  taken.  But  there  are  some  difficulties.  Why 
was  it,  as  we  are  told  more  than  once,  that  the  disciples 
understood  not  concerning  the  loaves  for  their  heart  was 
blinded?  The  miracle  was  very  easy  to  understand;  was 
it  a  spiritual  message  that  they  had  not  understood? 
Shortly  afterwards,  when  the  disciples  have  forgotten  to 
take  bread,  Jesus  tells  them  to  beware  of  the  leaven  of  the 
Pharisees,  and  of  the  leaven  of  Herod,  and  it  is  apparent 
that  they  are  bewildered  by  His  remark,  and  He  asks  them 
why  they  have  not  understood  what  happened  when  five 
thousand  were  fed  and  twelve  basketfuls  were  taken  up.^ 
On  this  occasion  it  appears  that  their  defect  was  a  failure 
to  understand  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  event.  There 
seems,  therefore,  to  have  been  some  ambiguity  in  tradition. 

From  a  more  modern  point  of  view,  difficulties  have  been 
found  in  the  nature  of  the  miracle.  It  has  been  pointed 
out  that,  unlike  other  miracles  of  our  Lord,  it  might  be 

*  Jn.  vi.  66.  2  Mk.  viii.  14-21. 


274  THE   CRISIS   OF  THE   MINISTRY 

classed  as  a  sign,  as  something  of  a  miraculous  and  wonder- 
ful character  done  so  as  to  impress  the  multitude,  and  that  it 
is,  in  fact,  inconsistent  with  the  story  of  the  temptation 
and  the  refusal  of  Jesus  to  turn  stones  into  bread.  It  has 
further  been  pointed  out  that  it  implies  an  interference 
with  the  laws  of  natural  phenomena,  and  with  the  ordinary 
processes  of  nature,  so  great  as  to  be  inconceivable  to  the 
scientific  mind,  or,  in  fact,  to  anyone  with  ordinary  common 
experience.  Therefore,  it  is  held  that  it  is  impossible  that 
it  could  happen,  and  this  argument  we  find  embelhshed  with 
a  good  deal  of  rhetoric. 

It  has  been  maintained,  therefore,  that  what  really 
happened  was  some  sort  of  sacramental  meal.  It  is  sug- 
gested (and  it  is  not  an  unreasonable  suggestion)  that  the 
solemn  partaking  of  bread,  blessed  and  broken  by  the 
Master,  was  a  custom  of  Jesus  and  His  disciples  quite  early 
in  the  ministry,  and  that  later  this  custom  was  consecrated 
and  made  permanent  at  the  Last  Supper.  What  Jesus  did, 
then,  was  to  consecrate  the  multitude  for  the  kingdom  in 
some  such  sacramental  feast;  what  He  really  gave  was 
spiritual  food.  Then,  probably  under  the  influence  of  Old 
Testament  stories,  this  was  transformed  into  a  miraculous 
event.  An  analogy  in  particular  has  been  found  with  a 
story  told  of  Elisha: 

"And  there  came  a  man  from  Baal-shalishah,  and  brought 
the  man  of  God  bread  of  the  first  fruits,  twenty  loaves  of 
barley,  and  fresh  ears  of  corn  in  his  sack.  And  he  said, 
Give  unto  the  people,  that  they  may  eat.  And  his  servant 
said.  What,  shall  I  set  this  before  an  hundred  men?  But 
he  said.  Give  the  people  that  they  may  eat;  for  thus  saith 
the  Lord,  They  shall  eat  and  shall  leave  thereof.  So  he 
set  it  before  them,  and  they  did  eat,  and  left  thereof,  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  the  Lord."^ 

The  story  of  the  feeding  of  the  multitude  was  (it  is  main- 
tained) constructed  in  imitation  of  this  story,  or,  at  any  rate, 
modified  so  as  to  harmonize  with  it,  and  is  a  proof  of  the 
desire  of  the  early  Church  to  construct  a  life  of  Christ 
modelled  on  the  hves  of  the  greater  prophets. 

^  2  Kings  iv.  42-44.  I  must  own  that  to  me  the  resemblance  is  so  slight 
as  to  seem  fanciful. 


THE   FEEDING  OF  THE   MULTITUDE        275 

It  may  be  doubted  whether  this  reconstruction  will  hold. 
We  must  notice  in  the  first  place  that  the  story  is  placed  in 
the  same  category  as  all,  or  almost  all,  the  other  miracles 
recorded  in  the  Gospel,  by  the  statement  that  it  arose  from 
the  compassion  that  Jesus  felt  for  the  multitude:  "In  those 
days  when  there  was  again  a  great  multitude,  as  they  had 
nothing  to  eat,  he  called  unto  him  his  disciples  and  saith 
unto  them,  I  have  compassion  on  the  multitude  because  they 
continue  with  me  now  three  days,  and  have  nothing  to  eat, 
and  if  I  send  them  away  fasting  to  their  homes,  they  will 
faint  in  the  way:  and  some  of  them  are  come  from  far."^ 
When  there  was  suffering  it  was  inevitable  that  Jesus 
should  reheve  it,  although  to  relieve  suffering  was  not  the 
purpose  of  His  ministry.  There  is,  in  fact,  no  hint  in  either 
of  St.  Mark's  accounts  that  there  was  any  desire  of  working 
a  sign,  no  hint  that  there  was  any  other  motive  but  that  of 
reUeving  distress  and  suffering. 

Nor  was  the  result  of  the  miracle  at  all  in  accordance 
with  this  supposed  spiritual  character.  A  spiritual  signi- 
ficance was  not  obvious.  The  people  wanted  to  make  Him 
king  —  just  the  result  which  might  come  from  some  ex- 
hibition of  power,  just  the  result  which  would  not  come  from 
a  purely  spiritual  sacrament;  and  the  further  result  is  the 
retirement  of  Jesus  for  some  considerable  time  from  the 
danger  to  which  He  was  exposed.  Something  happened 
which  first  roused  in  a  way  inconsistent  with  the  purpose 
of  the  ministry  the  enthusiasm  of  the  multitude,  and  then 
led  to  a  great  disappointment.  If  we  have  interpreted 
rightly  the  attitude  of  Jesus,  His  reluctance  to  perform 
miracles  arose  from  the  fact  that  they  created  a  wrong  sort 
of  enthusiasm,  and  were  inconsistent  with  the  spiritual 
character  of  His  mission.  We  have  an  echo  of  this  in  the 
fourth  Gospel:  "Ye  seek  me,  not  because  ye  saw  signs, 
but  because  ye  ate  of  the  loaves  and  were  filled."^  They 
did  not  understand  the  spiritual  significance  of  the  miracle, 
but  thought  that  the  kingdom  of  God  was  coming,  as  many 
had  imagined  it,   as  a   time  of  great  material  prosperity. 

^  Mk.  viii.     1-3.     On  the  relation  of  this  narrative  to  that  in  chapter 
vi.  see  the  note  p.  277. 
*  Jn.  vi.  26 

19 


276  THE   CRISIS   OF  THE   MINISTRY 

The  banquet  and  the  feast  were  regular  terms  used  of  the 
days  of  the  Messiah,  and  were  by  some  taken  Hterally. 
The  whole  attitude  was,  indeed,  natural  if  there  had  been  a 
real  feeding,  but  it  is  difficult  to  reconstruct  the  history 
if  we  think  it  was  only  a  sacramental  meal. 

But  if  there  was  such  a  feeding,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
trouble  about  the  means  by  which  it  took  place.  A  miracle 
and  a  wonderful  event  may  have  taken  place  in  many  ways, 
and  we  need  not  disbelieve  it  because  our  imagination  can- 
not picture  to  ourselves  the  way  in  which  it  could  have  hap- 
pened. I  would  venture  to  suggest  therefore  that,  exercising 
a  certain  amount  of  suspense  of  judgment,  we  should  refuse 
to  rule  out  the  story  on  a  priori  grounds,  as  necessarily  un- 
natural or  impossible,  and  should  recognize  that  something 
occurred  so  wonderful  as  to  stir  up  the  people  in  a  remarkable 
way.  I  would  suggest,  also,  that  we  should  not  be  too 
anxious  to  adopt  a  rationalistic  explanation  of  the  walking 
on  the  waves  and  the  stilling  of  the  storm,  and  should  there 
also  exercise  a  certain  suspense  of  judgment.  It  is  quite 
easy  to  devise  rationaKstic  explanations,  but  they  are  never 
really  convincing. 

In  St.  John's  Gospel  the  story  of  the  feeding  of  the 
multitude  is  followed  by  a  long  discourse  on  the  bread  of 
life,  which  it  is  stated  was  delivered  in  the  synagogue  at 
Capernaum.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  such  a  discourse 
was  ever  spoken.  There  is  no  record  of  such  an  event 
in  the  other  Gospels,  and  we  have  seen  how  the  period  of 
preaching  in  the  synagogue  had  probably  come  to  an  end. 
It  is  not,  indeed,  impossible  that  such  an  event  should  have 
happened,  but  it  is  improbable.  If  we  turn  to  the  discourse, 
it  will  appear  as  an  admirable  example  of  the  way  in  which 
the  discourses  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  although  not  (certainly 
in  many  cases)  the  record  of  discourses  actually  delivered, 
interpret,  and  interpret  correctly,  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
and  the  meaning  of  His  life.  Jesus  did  mean  us  to  draw 
spiritual  lessons  from  all  that  He  did.  The  symbolism  of 
spiritual  food  and  the  use  of  imagery  drawn  from  food  to 
express  our  spiritual  sustenance  were  entirely  in  accordance 
with  His  teaching.  We  find  this  symboHsm  in  the  tempta- 
tion: ''Man  does  not  Hve  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word 


JESUS   DESERTED   BY  DISCIPLES  277 

which  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord."^  "I  have 
meat  to  eat  that  ye  know  not  of."^  "Labour  not  for 
the  meat  that  perisheth."^  All  this  was  natural  to  Jesus' 
teaching.  It  was  the  sort  of  lesson  that  He  would  have  had 
His  disciples  draw  from  the  miracle  of  the  loaves.  So  it  was 
quite  in  accordance  with  the  whole  spirit  of  His  teaching 
that  the  ideas  of  the  bread  from  heaven  and  of  Jesus  giving 
us  spiritual  food  should  be  put  before  us  in  this  discourse, 
and  that  the  early  Church  should  have  seen  in  the  feeding 
of  the  multitude  a  symbol  of  the  Eucharist,  or  perhaps 
rather  should  have  seen  in  the  Eucharist  a  symbol  of 
the  teaching  which  Jesus  by  His  action  had  meant  to 
give. 

It  is,  I  think,  important  to  recognize  the  significance  of 
all  these  events.  Jesus  had  aroused  popular  enthusiasm, 
but  had  disappointed  it.  People  had  begun  to  think  that 
He  was  the  sort  of  Messiah  that  they  wanted,  but  when  they 
had  attempted  to  carry  out  this  hope  by  making  Him  king 
that  He  might  be  the  leader  in  a  revolt,  and  might  establish 
a  kingdom  such  as  they  desired,  He  had  failed  them.  The 
disappointment  must  have  been  great.  It  is  probably  a 
correct  tradition  that  has  been  preserved,  which  tells  us 
that  many  of  the  disciples  went  back  and  walked  no  more 
with  Him.  It  was,  therefore,  a  real  testing  to  His  disciples, 
and  those  that  remained  true  to  Him,  although  they  had  not 
in  the  least  really  understood  all  that  it  imphed,  showed 
themselves  more  clearly  than  they  had  yet  done  as  worthy 
to  be  His  disciples.  Meanwhile  the  gathering  of  this  large 
body  of  men  could  not  have  remained  unknown  to  the 
authorities,  and  must  have  seriously  increased  the  danger 
of  the  position. 

ni 

When  Jesus  and  His  disciples  landed  (contrary  to  their 
intention)  on  the  shores  of  the  plain  of  Gennesaret,  it  soon 
became  obvious  that  they  were  in  a  position  of  considerable 
danger.^    It  was  close  to  Tiberias,  the  residence  of  Herod. 

1  Mt.  iv.  4.  *  Jn.  iv.  32.  '  Jn.  vi.  27. 

*  I  have  omitted  Mk.  viii.  1-26  as  a  repetition  from  another  source  of 
the  events  contained  in  vi.  30  to  vii.  37.    It  was  pointed  out  in  the  Introduc- 


278  THE  CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

There  could  be  no  doubt  but  that  some  account,  probably 
largely  perverted,  would  soon  reach  him  of  the  unfortunate 
demonstration  on  the  other  side  of  the  lake.  Jesus  might 
hope  to  keep  His  presence  from  being  known,  but  that  was 
soon  shown  to  be  impossible.  Wherever  He  came  there 
were  demonstrations  of  popular  excitement.  "And  when 
they  were  come  out  of  the  boat,  straightway  the  people 
knew  him  and  ran  round  about  the  whole  region,  and  began 
to  carry  about  on  their  beds  those  that  were  sick  when  they 
heard  where  he  was.  And  wheresoever  he  entered  into 
villages  or  into  cities,  or  into  the  country,  they  laid  the  sick 
in  the  market-places,  and  besought  him  that  they  might 
touch,  if  it  were  but  the  border  of  his  garment;  and  as  many 
as  touched  him  were  made  whole." ^  Clearly  nowhere  on 
the  shores  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee  could  He  conceal  His  presence. 
*  But  there  were  other  dangers.  We  know  how  there  had 
been  earlier  a  conspiracy  against  Him  of  the  Herodians 
and  the  Pharisees,  and  that  already  the  report  of  His 
preaching  in  Galilee  had  begun  to  create  anxiety  in  Jerusalem. 
On  this  side,  too,  there  are  difficulties,  and  we  have  double 
evidence  on  the  point.  Scribes  had  again  come  down  from 
Jerusalem,  and  important  discussions  took  place  with  them 
and  the  Pharisees.     We  may  postpone  for  the  present  the 

tion  (p.  13)  that  the  feeding  of  the  5,000  and  the  feeding  of  the  4,000  are 
doublets  —  that  is,  stories  of  the  same  event  drawn  from  different  sources 
—  and  the  same  is,  I  think,  true  of  other  incidents.  The  parallelism  may  be 
shown  as  follows: 

vi.   30-44  The  5,000.  viii.      1-9   The  4,000. 

45-52   Walking  on  the  sea. 

53-56  Visit  to  Gennesaret.  10  Dalmanutha. 

vii.     1-23  Dispute  with  Pharisees.  11-13   Pharisees   demand   a 

sign. 
14-21   Leaven  of  Herod  and 
the  Pharisees  (con- 
flate). 
24-30   Journey  to  Tyre,  etc. 

31    Return  to  Sea  of  Gali-  (22   Return  to  Bethsaida 

lee 
(32-37  Heals  the  deaf  man.)  (22-26  Heals  the  blind  man). 

St.  Mark  would,  of  course,  omit  any  event  in  the  second  source  which  ob- 
viously overlapped. 
2  Mk.  vi.  54-56. 


DISPUTE  WITH  PHARISEES  279 

detailed  consideration  of  the  discussion,  but  we  may  notice 
that  the  main  subject  was  the  question  of  the  obligation  of 
ritual  observances,  and  that  Jesus  enunciates  the  great 
principle  of  the  supremacy  of  the  ethical  above  the  cere- 
monial, whether  in  the  law  of  ablution  or  the  law  of  food. 
"That  which  proceedeth  out  of  the  man,  that  defileth  the 
man.  For  from  within  out  of  the  heart  of  man  proceed 
evil  thoughts,  adulteries,  fornications,  murders,  thefts, 
covetousness,  wickedness,  deceit,  lasciviousness,  an  evil  eye, 
blasphemy,  pride,  foohshness:  all  these  evil  things  come 
from  within  and  defile  the  man."^ 

We  learn,  too,  that  the  Pharisees  demanded  a  sign.^ 
No  doubt  they  said:  "If  you  put  before  us  such  anarchical 
and  blasphemous  teaching,  you  must  show  some  sign  which 
will  be  your  credentials."  What  they  meant  by  a  sign  is 
shown  by  two  striking  illustrations  which  are  given  by 
Dr.  Edersheim.  A  certain  Rabbi  was  asked  by  his  disciples 
about  the  time  of  the  Messiah's  coming.  He  replied:  "I  am 
afraid  you  will  ask  me  for  a  sign."  When  they  promised 
they  would  not  do  so,  he  told  them  that  the  gate  of  Rome 
would  fall  and  be  rebuilt,  and  fall  again,  when  there  would 
not  be  time  to  restore  it,  ere  the  Son  of  David  came.  On 
this  they  pressed,  despite  his  remonstrance,  for  "a  sign," 
when  this  was  given  them  —  that  the  waters  which  issued 
from  the  cave  of  Paneas  were  turned  into  blood.  Again, 
as  regards  "a  sign  from  heaven,"  it  is  said  that  Rabbi 
EHezer,  when  his  teaching  was  challenged,  successively 
appealed  to  certain  "signs."  First,  a  locust  tree  moved  at 
his  bidding  a  hundred,  or,  according  to  some,  four  hundred, 
cubits.  Next  the  channel  of  water  was  made  to  flow  back- 
wards. Then  the  walls  of  the  Academy  leaned  forward, 
and  were  only  arrested  at  the  bidding  of  another  Rabbi. 
Lastly,  Eliezer  exclaimed:  "If  the  law  is  as  I  teach,  let  it 
be  proved  from  heaven!"  when  a  voice  fell  from  the  sky 
(the  Bath  Qol) :  "  What  have  ye  to  do  with  Rabbi  Ehezer, 
for  the  Halakhah  is  as  he  teaches."^  To  give  signs  such 
as  this  was  quite  inconsistent  with  the  whole  method  of 
Jesus'  life. 

^  Mk.  vii.  20-23.  ^  Mk.  viii.  11-13.     (See  note  p.  277.) 

*  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  ii.  pp.  68,  69. 


28o  THE   CRISIS   OF  THE   MINISTRY 

But  all  this  was  in  present  circumstances  very  incon- 
venient. It  would  increase  the  danger  if  Herod  felt  that  he 
could  have  Jewish  piety  on  his  side,  when  he  took  steps 
against  this  popular  and  dangerous  religious  teaching. 

The  sequel  was  natural.  It  was  clear  that  unless  the 
ministry  of  Jesus  was  to  be  prematurely  brought  to  an  end, 
Jesus  must  escape  this  danger.  If  He  desired  to  appear  in 
Jerusalem  as  Messiah,  He  must  avoid  what  was  threatening 
Him.  He  knew,  we  beheve,  that  He  must  lay  down  His 
Ufe,  but  it  must  be  at  Jerusalem.  So  He  went,  and  went, 
it  might  seem,  somewhat  speedily,  away  from  Gennesaret, 
straight  through  Galilee  into  the  territory  of  Tyre.  Here 
He  was  outside  Herod's  jurisdiction.  From  here  He  went 
farther  afield,  crossed  the  River  Litany,  and  entered  the 
territory  of  Sidon,  and  then  by  a  long  circuit,  probably 
through  the  mountainous  ranges  to  the  north,  into  the 
territory  of  the  Greek  cities  of  the  Decapolis.  It  is  curious 
how  lightly  this  journey  is  passed  over  by  many  commenta- 
tors. Because  it  is  narrated  in  but  a  few  verses  it  seems 
a  slight  thing.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  must  have  occupied 
many  months,  certainly  all  the  summer,  the  only  period 
during  which  such  a  journey  would  be  likely.^ 

It  was  clearly  not  a  preaching  tour.  Jesus  wished  to 
remain  hidden.  In  the  case  of  the  only  incident  recorded, 
the  healing  of  the  child  of  the  Syro-Phoenician  woman,  we 
are  told  that  He  entered  into  a  house  and  would  have  no 
one  know  it.  Then  He  passes  farther  afield,  and  in  the 
mountainous  region  on  the  slopes  of  Lebanon  and  Hermon 
He  would  have  for  a  time  rest  and  safety. 

This  journey,  then,  was  a  retirement  from  public  life  for 
the  sake  of  safety;  but  was  it  more  than  this?  Were  His 
disciples  with  Jesus?  It  has  been  conjectured  reasonably 
enough  that  they  were,  but  it  must  be  noticed  that  in  the 
narrative  of  St.  Mark  there  is  no  mention  of  them.  It  has, 
indeed,  been  surmised  that  one  of  the  objects,  perhaps 
even  the  main  object,  of  this  retirement  was  that  Jesus 
might  be  alone  with  His  disciples,  and  that  under  these 
conditions  He  might  train  them  for  the  work  that  they  were 

^  Mk.  vii.  24,  31. 


CAESAREA  PHILIPPI  281 

to  accomplish.  At  any  rate  their  instruction  was  necessary. 
They  must  learn  to  understand  His  office  and  ministry; 
not  only  must  they  recognize  Him  as  the  Messiah,  but  they 
must  learn  what  the  office  implied,  and  that  would  mean 
a  great  transformation  of  their  ideals.  They  must  learn 
more  intimately  than  they  had  yet  done,  or  than  they  could 
be  taught  in  popular  discourses,  what  His  message  was,  and 
what  the  message  was  that  they  would  have  to  give  when 
their  turn  came.  I  do  not  feel  quite  certain  that  we  can 
maintain  that  this  process  of  teaching  was  going  on  all 
through  this  period  of  retirement,  but  at  any  rate  we  shall 
come  shortly  to  the  result  of  continued  intercourse  with  Him 
in  the  more  complete  adhesion  of  His  disciples  and  a  higher 
understanding,  and  we  shall  be  able  to  see  how  then  Jesus 
led  them  on  to  a  still  more  complete  comprehension,  both  of 
the  nature  of  His  person  and  work  and  the  meaning  of  His 
Gospel. 

IV 

The  journey  ended  among  the  cities  of  Decapolis  and 
at  the  Sea  of  Galilee.^  Jesus  probably  did  not  at  this  time 
cross  the  lake,  but  made  His  way  to  Bethsaida  and  from 
there  northward,  keeping  in  the  territory  of  Philip,  until  He 
reached  the  district  of  Caesarea  Philippi.  This  place  is 
memorable  for  what  happened,  and  is  of  striking  interest 
in  itself.  Situated  at  the  head  waters  of  the  Jordan,  it  is 
one  of  the  most  beautiful  spots  in  Palestine.  Here,  on  the 
slopes  of  Mount  Hermon,  the  river  bursts  forth  from  a  cave, 
already  a  large  stream,  and  the  place  from  earlier  days 
had  been  looked  on  as  sacred.  As  a  sanctuary  of  the  old 
religion  it  was  called  Baal-Gad;  under  Greek  influence  it 
had  been  named  Paneas,  and  was  believed  to  be  a  haunt 
of  the  god  Pan.  Here  Herod  the  Great  founded  a  city  and 
fortress,  for  the  place  —  just  where  the  road  for  Damascus 
started  over  the  hills  —  had  great  strategic  importance,  and 
built  a  temple  of  white  marble  in  honour  of  Augustus. 
His  son  Philip,  on  succeeding  to  the  tetrarchy,  had  adorned 
and  beautified  the  city  and  given  it  his  name.    It  was  in  this 

^  See  note,  p.  277  above. 


282  THE   CRISIS   OF   THE   MINISTRY 

neighbourhood  that  St.  Peter's  confession  was  made,  and 
high  up  on  the  mountain  behind  the  event  called  the 
Transfiguration  took  place. 

While  they  were  travelHng  together  Jesus  asked  His 
disciples:  Whom  do  men  say  that  I  am?  They  repHed: 
some  John  the  Baptist,  others  Elias,  others  one  of  the 
prophets.  He  then  asked  them:  But  whom  say  ye  that 
I  am?  Peter  answered  and  said  to  him:  Thou  art  the 
Christ.    He  bade  them  tell  no  man.^ 

St.  Matthew  adds  to  this  the  following:  Jesus  said  unto 
him,  Blessed  art  thou,  Simon  Barjona,  for  flesh  and  blood 
have  not  revealed  it  unto  thee,  but  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven.  And  I  say  to  thee  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon 
this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  and  hell's  gates  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  I  will  give  to  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on 
earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.^ 

Of  these  additional  words  we  may  postpone  the  dis- 
cussion at  present,  only  saying  this,  that  the  fact  that  they 
are  not  contained  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel  does  not  necessarily 
prove  that  they  are  not  genuine.  We  know  that  it  is  a 
habit  of  St.  Matthew  to  attempt  to  make  a  story  complete 
by  conflating  two  different  versions.  In  some  cases  we  have 
the  two  versions  before  us,  the  one  contained  in  St.  Mark, 
the  other  derived  from  The  Discourses  and  contained  in 
St.  Luke.  The  same  thing  was  doubtless  done  in  some 
other  cases  where  we  cannot  prove  it  in  the  same  way, 
because  St.  Luke  does  not  happen  to  have  incorporated  the 
portion  in  question  from  The  Discourses.  Again,  we  know 
how  St.  Matthew  amplifies  a  speech  by  adding  material 
taken  from  another  source,  and  very  often  spoken  at  another 
time.  This  may  have  been  done  on  this  occasion.  The 
promise  given  to  St.  Peter  as  an  explanation  of  his  new  name 
may  have  been  given  on  some  other  occasion  and  the  record 
preserved  in  this  short  saying,  which  St.  Matthew  feels  may 
very  suitably  be  placed  here.  The  point  I  want  to  make  is 
that  there  is  no  external  reason  which  need  imply  that  the 

1  Mk.  viii.  27-30.  ^  Mt,  xvi.  18,  19. 


THE  CONFESSION  OF  PETER  283 

words  are  not  genuine.  But  the  questions  involved  are 
different  in  character  to  those  that  now  confront  us,  and  we 
had  better  postpone  to  another  occasion  our  treatment  of 
them. 

The  confession  of  Peter  was  the  result  on  the  disciples 
of  their  continued  intercourse  with  Jesus,  and  the  outcome 
of  His  method  of  self-revelation.  The  question  of  the 
Messianic  secret  has  been  discussed  at  great  length  by- 
many  commentators,  and  various  theories,  some  more, 
some  less  derogatory  to  the  authority  of  Jesus,  have  been 
put  forward.  It  has  been  maintained  that  only  gradually 
did  He  learn  to  think  of  Himself  as  Messiah,  even  that  it  was 
Peter's  eager  confession  that  first  gave  Him  the  courage 
to  desire  the  office.  It  must  be  pointed  out  that  all  such 
theories  are  inconsistent  with  the  story  as  we  have  it.  If 
you  desire  to  maintain  such  a  position,  you  must  not  only 
reject  the  story  of  the  baptism  and  of  the  temptation,  but 
the  whole  character  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  Had  He  not 
thought  of  Himself  as  the  Messiah,  He  could  not  have 
taught  with  the  authority  that  He  did.  He  could  not  have 
claimed  to  supersede  as  He  did  the  old  law  and  introduce 
a  higher  theory  of  life  than  it  had  given.  The  whole  record 
of  His  life,  even  if  you  wish  to  omit  the  most  obvious  facts, 
the  miracles,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  the  authoritative  power 
over  evil  and  over  man's  destiny,  is  inconsistent  with  any 
less  claim;  for  the  claims  of  Jesus  are  just  as  great  in  what 
is  non-miraculous  and  apparently  normal  in  His  ministry. 

Why,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  did  He  not  formally  make 
a  claim  to  the  position  which  He  believed  that  He  held? 
It  we  take  the  narrative  as  it  is  given  us  in  St.  Mark  — 
and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  appears  for  the  most  part  to  pre- 
serve the  correct  chronological  sequence  of  events  —  there  is 
nothing,  with  the  possible  exception  of  the  occasional  use 
of  the  term  Son  of  Man,  which  might  seem  to  be  an  assump- 
tion of  any  unusual  position.  Why,  then,  this  reticence? 
I  venture  to  think  that  a  few  minutes'  reflection  will  show 
you  that  our  Lord's  action  and  plan  was  the  only  course 
possible  for  Him.  Suppose  that  He  had  begun  by  pro- 
claiming Himself  as  the  Messiah,  what  reason  could  people 
have  had  for  believing   Him?     It  would    obviously  have 


284  THE  CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

exposed 'Him  to  the  question,  What  justification  have  you 
to  offer  for  what  you  say?  How  can  we  reasonably  know 
that  it  is  true?  It  would,  in  fact,  have  taken  away  from 
the  authority  of  His  words.  And  if  some  had  at  once 
beheved  Him,  as  people  had  beheved  all  the  various  im- 
posters  who  had  arisen,  it  would  have  been  just  those  who 
had  the  most  conventional  and  the  most  unworthy  con- 
ceptions of  what  the  Messiah  should  be.  And  as  a  result 
all  the  troubles  which  arose  from  the  secular  aspiration  of 
the  GaHlaeans  would  have  been  intensified,  and  the  dangers 
also.  Had  He  definitely  proclaimed  himself  as  the  Messiah, 
the  opposition  of  Herod  and  of  the  authorities  of  the  Jewish 
Church  would  have  been  far  more  vigorous,  and  their  action 
would  have  been  prompt.  They  would  have  feared  a 
disturbance,  and  would  have  treated  Him  as  an  imposter. 

The  action  of  Jesus  was  dictated  by  political  wisdom, 
and  (as  has  been  pointed  out  recently)  by  true  psychological 
insight.  He  so  acted  as  to  lead  those  who  were  worthy  to 
think  Him  the  Messiah.  He  proclaimed  the  kingdom.  He 
taught  in  a  way  which  would  inspire  all  who  heard  Him. 
He  taught  as  only  the  Messiah  had  a  right  to  teach.  He 
made  it  clear  by  His  spiritual  power,  beneficently  exercised, 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  had  come.  His  answer  to  John 
the  Baptist  is  significant  of  His  message.  Do  you  think 
that  an  imaginative  writer  of  the  early  Church  could  have 
had  enough  historical  insight  to  conceive  the  situation? 
He  did  not  say  what  He  claimed  to  be,  but  he  spoke  and 
acted  in  such  a  way  that  those  that  understood  would  know. 
And  so  as  regards  the  disciples,  He  gradually  influences 
them  by  His  teaching,  by  His  spiritual  power,  by  His 
personality,  until,  although  many  of  the  conventional  signs 
and  characteristics  of  the  Messiah  were  absent,  they  beheved 
in  Him.  So  when  they  are  asked  the  question.  Whom  say 
ye  that  I  am?  Peter  answers.  Thou  art  the  Christ. 

This  purposeful  action  seems  corroborated  by  the  events 
which  are  narrated  as  following  shortly  afterwards,  perhaps 
not  immediately.  We  are  told  that  from  this  time  Jesus 
began  to  speak  of  His  death  and  sufferings.  We  are  told 
how  Peter,  who  had  just  confessed  His  faith,  was  full  of 
what   he    considered    an    entirely    natural    indignation    and 


THE   METHOD   OF  JESUS  285 

received  a  most  severe  rebuke,  and  then  how  Jesus  more 
clearly  and  definitely  than  ever  before  began  to  expound 
the  Gospel  of  the  Cross,  that  ultimate  and  complete  self- 
sacrifice  which  is  the  fundamental  rule  of  the  Christian  life. 
I  need  not  remind  you  that  all  this  —  as  it  appears  to  me 
natural  sequence  of  events  —  is  condemned  by  some  critics 
as  unhistorical,  that  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  someone 
thirty  years  or  so  later  invented  it,  that  Jesus  had  no  in- 
timation of  the  end  that  awaited  Him,  that  the  protest  of 
Peter  was  introduced  to  work  out  the  thesis  which  was  one 
of  the  fancies  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  that  the  Apostles  were 
a  singularly  stupid  body  of  men,  and  that  the  meaning  of 
Christ's  death  in  its  bearings  on  the  Christian  life  was  a 
discovery  of  the  early  Church  towards  which  they  had  no 
help  from  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  I  am  afraid  that  all 
criticism  of  this  sort  seems  to  me  so  baseless  that  I  do  not 
feel  able  to  deal  with  it  with  that  patience  which  no  doubt 
I  ought  to  display.  We  shall  deal  later  with  our  Lord's 
conception  of  His  Messianic  office  and  of  the  suffering 
Messiah.  What  I  will  put  to  you  now  is  this:  Is  it  in 
the  least  hkely  that  a  writer  a  generation  later  would  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  devise  this  elaborate  scheme  of 
events,  or,  in  fact,  had  the  historical  imagination  to  do  so? 
And  is  not  the  succession  of  events,  as  they  are  described, 
reasonable  and  natural?  It  was,  as  we  have  shown,  im- 
possible for  our  Lord  to  have  taught  His  Messianic  claims 
in  any  other  way  than  He  did.  It  was  natural  that 
gradually  His  intimate  disciples  should  have  become  con- 
vinced. It  was  natural  that  it  should  be  Peter  who  made 
the  confession.  It  was  natural,  if  our  Lord  was  convinced 
of  the  necessity  of  His  death,  that  it  should  be  after  His 
disciples  had  attained  a  full  conviction  about  Him  that 
He  should  begin  to  give  this  higher  revelation.  It  was 
natural  (if  one  considers  all  that  was  involved  in  the 
ordinary  beliefs  about  the  Messiah)  that  this  should  mean 
a  severe  shock  to  them  and  that  Peter,  impulsive  as  always 
and  eager  for  what  he  believed  was  for  the  honour  of  His 
Master,  should  be  the  one  to  express  this.  It  was  natural 
that  our  Lord  should  have  rebuked  him  (and  could  such 
a   rebuke    have    been  invented?)    exactly   on   the  grounds 


286  THE   CRISIS   OF   THE   MINISTRY 

that  He  did,  for  they  are  consistent  with  His  teaching. 
It  was  natural  that  Jesus  should  now  begin  to  show  how 
the  fate  which  awaited  Him  harmonized  with  all  the  deepest 
realities  of  the  spiritual  life.  And  certainly  from  this  time 
onward  there  is  a  deeper  and  a  sadder  note  in  the  teaching 
of  Jesus,  a  note  which  reveals  itself  in  many  discourses  and 
incidents  and  parables. 

And  then,  again,  are  we  to  think  that  it  was  from  Jesus, 
or  from  His  followers,  that  the  deepest  characteristics  of 
His  teaching  should  come?  Jesus  had  taught  the  Gospel 
of  love,  an  ethical  system  which  finally  resolved  itself  into 
the  maxim,  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself.  But 
the  man  who  loves  his  neighbour  as  himself  must  be  prepared, 
if  called  on,  to  lay  down  his  life  for  his  neighbour.  Jesus 
felt  that  He  must  fulfil  this  law.  He  could  not  accomplish 
His  work  unless  He  was  prepared  to  die.  How  long  He 
had  had  this  conviction  we  cannot  say.  It  is  probable  that 
the  consciousness  of  coming  suffering  must  always  have  been 
with  Him,  for  He  looked  upon  Himself  as  the  Servant  of 
God,  and  suffering  was  the  lot  of  the  Servant.  But  the 
inner  consciousness  of  Jesus  must  be  something  of  which 
we  can  only  have  glimpses.  In  any  case,  the  progress  of 
events  had  now  made  it  clear  that  He  could  not  expect  to 
accomphsh  His  purpose  without  a  break  with  official 
Judaism  which  must  mean  His  death.  Thus  He  would 
exhibit  Himself  that  law  of  Hfe  which  He  had  laid  down. 
And  now  was  the  right  time  to  make  His  followers  realize 
the  ultimate  principle  which  His  own  Ufe  was  to  exhibit  — 
the  law  of  self-sacrifice. 

The  verses  that  follow  are  among  the  most  impressive 
even  in  the  Gospels.^  *'Do  you  wish,"  He  says  to  the  people, 
"to  be  a  follower  of  Mine.  Then  you  must  do  as  I  do. 
You  must  be  prepared  to  give  up  everything.    You  must  be 

1  It  may  be  noted  also  that  these  are  some  of  the  best  attested  sayings  of 
our  Lord.  Mk.  viii.  34  recurs  not  only  in  the  two  parallel  passages  (Mt. 
xvi.  24;  Lk.  ix.  23),  but  also  in  Mt.  x.  38  and  Lk.  xiv.  27,  though  in  a  nega- 
tive form,  probably  from  The  Discourses.  Mk.  viii.  35  occurs  in  two  paral- 
lels (Mt.  xvi.  25;  Lk.  ix.  24),  in  Mt.  x.  39  and  Lk.  xvii.  Z3-  These  two  verses 
last  referred  to  differ  so  much  in  phraseology  that  they  possibly  come  from 
separate  sources.  It  also  occurs  in  Jn.  xii.  25.  See  Hawkins,  Horae  Synop- 
ticae,  pp.  86-88). 


THE  LAW  OF  SACRIFICE  287 

prepared  to  take  up  the  life  that  I  lead,  and  to  die  the  death 
that  I  will  die,  if  you  are  called  to  it.  If  you  care  only  for 
your  life  and  the  things  of  this  life,  you  will  lose  everything 
even  here.  If  you  are  prepared  for  My  sake  and  the  sake 
of  the  Gospel  to  give  up  everything,  you  will  gain  everything. 
The  things  of  this  world  and  all  its  wealth  can  do  no  good  to 
one  who  has  lost  his  own  soul.  A  time  will  come  when 
you  will  have  to  give  an  account  of  your  life,  and  if  you  are 
ashamed  now  of  Me  and  of  My  words,  then  the  Son  of  Man 
will  be  ashamed  of  you  when  He  comes  to  judge  the  world." 
The  meaning,  no  doubt,  from  one  point  of  view  is  eschato- 
logical,  but  it  is  not  only  eschatological.  It  never  is  in  the 
Gospels.  A  man's  life,  even  here,  is  quite  independent  of 
the  things  of  the  world. 

It  all  harmonizes  together:  Jesus'  conception  of  His 
own  end,  His  Gospel,  and  His  lesson  to  the  people.  It  is  the 
fundamental  note  of  Christianity,  and  I  do  not  feel  able 
to  believe  that  it  comes  from  those  followers  of  His  who 
found  it  so  difficult  to  learn,  and  even  after  His  death  were 
not  without  inadequate  ideas  of  His  mission.  If  any  of 
you  are  frightened  of  the  phrase  "let  him  take  up  his 
cross,"  you  are  quite  at  Hberty  to  believe  that  the  passage 
has  been  modified  by  the  influence  of  later  phraseology 
without  necessarily  thinking  that  the  whole  passage  has 
been  interpolated,  but  I  do  not  see  why  Jesus  should  not 
have  used  it.  The  cross  was  a  symbol  of  a  degraded  death, 
its  cruelty  had  often  been  exhibited  in  Palestine,  and  every- 
one who  came  in  contact  with  the  Roman  authorities  would 
know  that  it  might  be  his  lot. 


But  one  more  incident.  Six  days  afterwards,  accom- 
panied only  by  Peter  and  James  and  John,  Jesus  sought 
the  solitude  of  the  higher  mountains,  probably  the  upper 
slopes  of  Hermon,  and  there  He  was  transfigured  before 
them.  His  raiment  became  shining,  exceeding  white  as 
snow:  so  as  no  fuller  on  earth  can  whiten  it.  And  there 
appeared  unto  them  Moses  and  EHas :  and  they  were  talking 
with  Jesus.    And  Peter  answered  and  said  to  Jesus,  Master, 


288  THE   CRISIS  OF  THE  MINISTRY 

it  is  good  for  us  to  be  here;  and  let  us  make  three  taber- 
nacles: one  for  thee  and  one  for  Moses  and  one  for  Elias. 
For  he  wist  not  what  to  say;  for  they  were  sore  afraid.  And 
there  was  a  cloud  that  overshadowed  them:  and  a  voice 
came  out  of  the  cloud,  saying,  "This  is  my  Beloved  Son; 
hear  him." 

I  am  not  going  to  trouble  you  with  all  the  vagaries  of 
modern  criticism.  This  story  was,  of  course,  invented  by  the 
early  Church.  Perhaps  it  was  a  reconstruction  of  some  res- 
urrection story.  Peter  and  James  and  John  were  selected  as 
witnesses  to  give  an  air  of  credibility  to  the  story.  The  six 
days  are  the  six  days  of  creation,  or  the  six  days  that  Moses 
spent  on  the  mountain  —  the  parallel  is  singularly  inade- 
quate, as  Jesus  does  not  spend  six  days  on  the  mountain. 
It  would  really  be  convenient  if  the  Evangelist  had  ex- 
plained to  us  these  rather  far-fetched  symbols  and  parallels, 
as  they  are  certainly  difficult  to  discover. 

I  could  only  put  this  to  you:  It  may  well  be  that  there 
are  elements  of  exaggeration  in  the  story.  We  do  not 
expect  experiences  of  this  nature  to  be  reported  in  a  literal 
and  exact  manner.  But  is  there  anything  that  we  have 
recorded  here  which  would  not  be  consistent  with  the 
intense  spiritual  experience  through  which  the  Apostles 
and  our  Lord  had  passed?  We  read  and  narrate  amid  all 
the  cornmonplace  comfort  of  our  modern  life  these  stories 
of  great  spiritual  experiences  which  have  modified  the  history 
of  the  world.  The  confession  of  the  Messiah,  the  prediction 
of  His  sufferings,  the  exaltation  of  the  life  of  Christ,  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  in  glory,  were  not  all  these  tremendous 
spiritual  facts?  Could  all  this  happen  without  mind  and 
spirit  being  strained?  For  Jesus  and  His  disciples  all 
this  must  have  meant  a  great  crisis.  Has  a  great  spiritual 
teacher  never  before  or  since  sought  the  solitude  of  the 
mountains  —  alone  or  with  his  disciples  —  urged  by  the 
intense  desire  to  commune  with  God?  And  would,  for 
such  men,  the  spiritual  experience  be  quite  normal?  We 
shall  gradually  find  out,  as  we  proceed,  what  we  are  to 
think  and  believe  about  Jesus;  but  even  to  those  who  do 
not  accept  all  that  Christian  tradition  implies,  I  would  say, 
Can    you    really    reduce    the    spiritual    experiences    which 


THE  TRANSFIGURATION  289 

created  the  Gospel  to  the  dull  level  of  our  commonplace 
lives?  And  could  a  great  movement,  which  has  so  pro- 
foundly modified  the  world,  have  come  into  being  without 
such  experiences?  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  exactly  what 
happened  at  the  Transfiguration,  and  semi-rationalistic 
reconstructions  seem  to  me  always  singularly  unconvincing, 
but  I  see  nothing  in  the  story,  as  we  have  it,  that  might  not 
have  been  told  by  the  disciples  as  a  truthful  description  of 
what  they  believed  had  happened. 

The  great  crisis  of  Jesus'  Hfe  was  now  passed.  There  had 
been  the  period  of  early  and  enthusiastic  reception,  when 
it  might  have  been  thought  that  the  kingdom  would  speedily 
be  established  in  men's  hearts.  There  had  been  growing 
opposition  and  danger.  There  had  been  a  time  of  retirement 
and  rest.  Then  had  come  the  conviction  and  confession  of 
the  disciples,  and  the  growing  consciousness  of  the  end. 
The  preparation  had  been  made.  Now  there  was  nothing 
left  but  to  set  His  face  to  go  to  Jerusalem. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  MESSIAH 

We  are  told  how,  after  His  baptism,  Jesus  was  led  by  the 
Spirit  into  the  wilderness  to  be  tempted  of  the  devil.  He 
had,  we  remember,  passed  through  a  spiritual  crisis  of  great 
intensity.  The  full  conviction  of  His  mission  had  come 
upon  Him.  He  had  realized  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  the 
Son  of  God,  the  Servant  of  the  Lord.  I  have  pointed  out 
to  you  how,  as  we  can  gather  from  His  teaching.  His  mind 
had  been  formed  (if  we  may  use  the  term)  by  the  earnest 
and  spiritual  study  of  the  word  of  God.  The  conception  of 
the  person  and  work  of  the  Messiah,  what  He  was  and  what 
He  must  do,  had  gradually  fashioned  itself,  and  in  His 
baptism  came  the  final  conviction  of  His  calling.  Naturally 
enough  He  sought  the  solitude  of  the  desert,  as  holy  men 
of  old  had  done,  and  naturally  enough  there  temptation 
and  struggle  came  to  Him,  for  He  had  a  tremendous  decision 
to  make.^ 

He  was  hungry  with  fasting,  and  the  devil  came  and 
tempted  Him.  He  was  conscious  of  powers  such  as  other 
men  had  not;  why  should  not  He  use  them  for  His  own 
advantage?  If,  as  the  Baptist  said,  God  out  of  these 
stones  could  raise  up  children  to  Abraham,  why  should  not 
He,  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  be  made 
bread?  Why  should  not  He  secure  for  Himself  a  hfe  free 
from  care  and  want?  The  temptation  might  go  further. 
There  was  widespread  want  and  misery  in  the  world. 
Why  should  not  He  use  the  powers  that  He  possessed 
for  at  once  introducing  the  Messianic  kingdom  that  men 
expected,  and  times  of  wealth  and  ease  and  material 
happiness? 

^  The  story  of  the  Temptation  comes  from  The  Discourses.  Mt.  iv.  i-ii; 
Lk.  iv.  1-13;   see  also  Mk.  i.  12,  13. 

290 


THE   TEMPTATION  291 

All  this  was  natural  enough.  Have  not  most  of  us  had 
similar  dreams  of  some  miracle  increasing  human  well-being, 
and  solving  all  those  anxious  problems  of  Hfe  which  men 
have?  But  one  thing  was  clear  to  Jesus.  All  this  was 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  what  He  knew  was  His  work. 
He  had  not  come  to  get  comfort  or  material  well-being  for 
Himself,  or  even  for  others.  His  work  was  spiritual.  Man 
doth  not  live  by  bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  which  pro- 
ceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God. 

But  there  were  other  ways  in  which  He  might  use  His 
powers.  How  was  He,  with  this  message  which  was  forming 
in  His  mind,  to  win  credence?  Would  people  be  likely 
to  believe  Him?  He  must  bring  some  credentials.  The 
prophet  had  foretold  that  the  Lord  would  suddenly  come 
to  His  temple,  and  the  Rabbis  had  elaborated  this  so  as 
to  create  one  of  the  signs  of  the  Messiah.^  He  would  appear 
suddenly  on  the  topmost  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  and  descend 
among  the  expectant  people.  What  better  way  could  be 
conceived  of  asserting  His  Messianic  claims?  No  one  who 
had  seen  that  happen  could  doubt  that  He  had  come  with 
divine  credentials,  and  they  would  readily  hear  His  message. 
No  doubt  the  angels  of  God  would  support  Him  in  His 
descent.  But  it  would  mean  presuming  upon  His  powers. 
It  would  be  tempting  God.  It  would  mean  commending 
His  message  in  the  wrong  way. 

The  ordinary  expectation  of  the  Messiah  was  that  He 
would  be  a  great  king  and  conqueror.  He  would  be  endowed 
with  more  than  natural  power,  and  under  His  leadership  the 
armies  of  Israel  would  be  supreme  in  the  world.  The  great 
Messianic  kingdom  would  be  created.  He,  as  Messiah, 
would  rule  the  world  in  righteousness,  and  then  the  golden 
age  would  come.  It  was  a  natural  dream,  and  He  knew 
that  He  had  the  power,  but  it  would  not  attain  what  He 
had  come  to  accomplish,  for  men  would  not  be  any  better 
than  they  had  been,  and  He  could  only  bring  it  about 
by  using  means  quite  inconsistent  with  His  whole  nature. 
It  would  mean  employing  the  methods  of  the  world;  it 
would  mean  the  appeal  to  force;  it  would  mean  not  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  the  submission  of  the 

^  See  Edersheim,  Life  of  Jesus  the  Messiah,  I.  p.  293. 


292  THE   MESSIAH 

Messiah  to  the  prince  of  evil.  To  worship  God  only,  to 
fulfil  His  will,  to  work  His  righteousness,  was  the  one  thing 
demanded  of  man. 

We  need  not  look  on  the  story  of  the  temptation  as  a 
literal  account  of  actual  events.  Origen  first  pointed  out 
for  us  that  it  is  a  figurative  story  describing  in  picturesque 
language  the  temptations  to  which  Jesus  would  be  exposed.^ 
We  can  well  be  content  with  Origen's  support,  and  refuse 
to  turn  poetry  into  prose.  But  what  I  would  first  point 
out  to  you  is  how  entirely  suitable  and  natural  to  the 
situation  the  Temptation  as  depicted  is,  Jesus  is  conscious 
of  His  mission  and  His  spiritual  power.  He  knows,  too, 
the  right  way  of  fulfilling  that  mission,  and  He  has  already 
an  intuition  of  what  it  will  lead  to.  It  means  toil  and 
suffering,  and  perhaps  death.  There  were  other  very 
plausible  ways  of  doing  what  He  wished.  Why  should  He 
not  fulfil  all  the  highest  natural  hopes  of  His  countrymen? 
Why  should  He  not  do  something  startling  and  wonderful 
to  draw  all  men  to  Himself?  Why  not  secure  material 
comfort  for  Himself  and  all  the  world?  We  know  how 
the  people  wanted  to  make  Him  king,  how  the  Pharisees 
demanded  a  sign,  how  people  crowded  round  Him  that  he 
might  heal  them,  and  were  anxious  to  eat  His  bread,  but 
did  not  care  for  His  spiritual  teaching.  Clearly  there  was 
a  higher  and  lower  way,  and  much  temptation  to  choose  the 
lower  way,  and  that  temptation  Jesus  resists. 

But  is  the  story  of  the  Temptation  true,  or  is  it  an 
imaginative  effort  of  a  later  theologian?  If  it  is  true 
it  must  come  from  Jesus  Himself.  Just  as  He  described 
the  spiritual  experience  of  His  baptism  in  the  natural 
figurative  language  which  might  convey  His  meaning,  so 
He  would  describe  His  Temptation.  But  did  He  do  so? 
I  can  point  out  to  you  that  it  is  contained  in  a  very  early 
source,  and  it  shows  a  psychological  insight  which  I  could 
hardly  expect  from  any  other  than  Himself.  Further  than 
that,  it  exactly  harmonizes  with  the  situation  depicted  in 
the  Gospels.  The  difficulty  some  people  would  feel  about 
it  is  that  it  presupposes  a  Christ  with  miraculous  powers. 
As  they  think  that  such  a  conception  is  impossible,  they  are 

^  Origen,  De  Principiis,  IV.  i.  i6. 


THE   MESSIANIC  HOPE  293 

compelled  to  assume  a  later  origin.  To  that  I  can  only 
reply  that  the  conception  of  Jesus  as  recorded  for  us  in 
the  authorities  that  we  possess  exactly  corresponds  with 
the  Jesus  of  the  Temptation  stories.  The  Gospels  tell  us 
of  one  who  was  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews,  but  throughout 
His  life  disappointed  their  expectations  because  He  would 
not  be  the  Messiah  that  they  wanted.  He  had  great  spiritual 
powers,  and  is  represented  as  being  able  to  work  miracles, 
but  there  is  a  curious  self-restraint  in  the  way  in  which  He 
uses  these  powers.  He  will  not  work  a  sign,  He  will  not  use 
them  for  His  own  advantage,  He  will  make  no  appeal  to 
force  and  power.  On  the  contrary.  His  one  aim  is  to  arouse 
and  create  the  spiritual  life  of  those  among  whom  He  works. 
He  will  do  none  of  the  things  they  wish,  but  bids  them  fulfil 
God's  will.  Now  the  Temptation  tells  us  that  Jesus  had 
dehberately  rejected  all  these  imperfect  ideals,  that  He  had 
had  the  natural  human  desire  to  work  in  that  way,  but  that 
He  knew  they  were  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  fulfilment 
of  His  purpose,  and  He  had  had  the  strength  to  resist  what 
must  have  seemed  an  overpowering  temptation.  Our 
narrative  is  throughout  self-consistent;  it  is  psychologically 
true;  it  depicts  just  what  must  have  been  the  temptation  of 
the  Jesus  of  the  Gospel.  For  my  part,  it  is  easier  to  believe 
that  all  these  things  are  true  than  that  they  are  the  result 
of  later  imaginings. 


The  hope  of  a  Messiah  was  among  the  most  remarkable 
features  of  the  rehgion  of  Israel.  How  did  it  come  about  that 
this  small  and  obscure  nation  should  have  had  such  a 
vitaHty  of  hope,  should  have  looked  forward  continually, 
in  spite  of  all  adversity  and  misfortune,  to  the  coming  of  one 
in  whom  should  be  accomplished  for  them  their  destiny, 
a  destiny  which  should  extend  their  influence  and  power 
over  the  whole  earth? 

It  was  quite  early  in  Israel's  history  that  the  hope  grew 
up  of  the  coming  of  the  ideal  monarchy  of  the  house  of 
David.  The  promise  of  it  comes  first  in  the  address  of 
Nathan  to  David  —  a  passage  which  dates  in  its  present  form 
from  some  time  towards  the  close  of  the  monarchy,  but  con- 


294  THE   MESSIAH 

tains  an  early  and  probably  authentic  element;  "When  thy 
days  be  fulfilled,  and  thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers, 
I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee,  which  shall  proceed  out 
of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom.  He  shall 
build  an  house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish  the 
throne  of  his  kingdom  for  ever.  I  will  be  his  father,  and  he 
shall  be  my  son."^  This  conception  of  the  greatness  of  Israel 
associated  with  the  house  of  David  occurs  in  a  series  of 
passages  in  the  prophets.  ''In  that  day,"  says  Amos,  "will 
I  raise  up  the  tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen.  ...  I  will 
bring  again  the  captivity  of  my  people  Israel,  and  they  shall 
build  the  waste  cities  .  .  .  and  I  will  plant  them  upon 
their  land,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  plucked  up  out  of  their 
land  which  I  have  given  them,  saith  the  Lord  thy  God."^ 
"The  children  of  Israel,"  says  Hosea,  "shall  return,  and 
seek  the  Lord  their  God  and  David  their  king,  and  shall 
come  with  fear  unto  the  Lord,  and  to  his  presence  in  the 
latter  days."^  And  Jeremiah:  "Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David  a  righteous 
branch,  and  he  shall  reign  as  king  and  deal  wisely,  and 
shall  execute  judgment  and  Justice  in  the  land.  .  .  .  And 
this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called.  The  Lord  is 
our  righteousness."^ 

Let  us  notice  one  thing.  You  will  find  that  many  of  our 
critical  friends  will  tell  you  that  these  Messianic  passages 
in  the  pre-exilic  prophets  have  been  interpolated,  and  belong 
to  a  later  period.  I  am  afraid  that  the  arguments  that 
they  use  are  not  very  convincing  to  me,  but  for  the  present 
purpose  the  criticism  does  not  matter.  We  are  not  con- 
cerned with  the  chronology  of  the  Messianic  idea,  but  with 
the  fact.  Exactly  how  that  idea  grew  up  may  well  be  an 
interesting  subject  of  investigation;  the  important  point  for 
us  is  that  it  was  there,  and  whether  it  was  formulated  a 
little  earlier  or  a  little  later  does  not  really  matter. 

This  conception  of  the  ideal  sovereignty  of  the  house 
of  David  is  summed  up  for  us  in  a  great  passage  in  the 
Psalms,  which  must  have  played  a  considerable  part  in  the 
development  of  thought: 

*  2  Sam.  vii.  12-14.  ^  Amos,  ix.  11-15. 

*  Hos.  iii.  5.  *  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6. 


THE   SON  OF   DAVID  295 

I  have  found  David  my  servant  ; 

With  my  holy  oil  have  I  anointed  him:   .   .   . 

My  faithfulness  and  my  mercy  shall  be  with  him  ; 

And  in  my  name  shall  his  horn  be  exalted.   .   .   . 

I  will  also  make  him  my  firstborn, 

The  highest  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.   .  .  . 

My  covenant  will  I  not  break, 

Nor  alter  the  thing  that  has  gone  out  of  my  lips. 

Once  have  I  sworn  by  my  hoUness, 

I  will  not  lie  unto  David. 

His  seed  shall  endure  for  ever, 

And  his  throne  as  the  sun  before  me.* 

When  I  was  speaking  about  the  kingdom  you  will  re- 
member how  I  laid  stress  on  the  way  in  which  the  reign  of 
David  had  created  an  ideal  for  Israel;  it  was  natural, 
therefore,  that  all  the  highest  conceptions  for  the  future 
ruler  should  be  expressed  in  language  connected  with  the 
race  of  David. 

Then  we  get  also  a  definite  expectation  of  an  individual 
person.  In  the  Book  of  Micah  there  is  an  ideal  picture 
drawn  of  the  future  for  Jerusalem,  a  future  of  peace  and 
prosperity,  of  honour  among  the  nations,  and  a  great 
position  in  the  world  —  "Out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  instruc- 
tion, and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem,"^ —  and  this 
ideal  future  is  associated  with  the  ideal  ruler  of  Israel.  "He 
shall  stand  and  shall  feed  his  flock  in  the  strength  of  the 
Lord,  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God:  and 
they  shall  abide;  for  now  shall  he  be  great  unto  the  ends 
of  the  earth." 3 

And  then  there  are  the  great  passages  of  the  book  of 
Isaiah:  "And  there  shall  come  forth  a  shoot  out  of  the 
stock  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  out  of  his  roots  shall  bear  fruit: 
and  the  spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  Him  .  .  .  with 
righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  poor,  and  reprove  with 
equity  for  the  meek  of  the  earth;  and  he  shall  smite  the 
earth  with  the  rod  of  his  mouth,  and  with  the  breath  of  his 
lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked.  .  .  ."  "And  it  shall  come 
to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  root  of  Jesse,  which  standeth 
for  an  ensign  of  the  peoples,  unto  him  shall  the  nations  seek: 
and  his  resting  place  shall  be  glorious."* 

*  Ps.  Ixxxix.  20-36.         2  Mic.  iv.  2.         ^  Ihid.  v.  4.         *  Is.  xi.  i-io. 


296  THE  MESSIAH 

Or,  if  we  turn  to  the  Psalms,  we  get  the  same  ideas  in  a 
more  religious  setting: 

The  kings  of  the  earth  set  themselves, 

And  the  rulers  take  counsel  together, 

Against  the  Lord  and  against  his  Anointed.  .  .  . 

I  will  tell  of  a  decree: 

The  Lord  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my  Son; 

This  day  have  I  begotten  thee, 

Ask  of  me,  and  I  will  give  thee  the  nations  for  thine  inheritance, 

And  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth  for  thy  possession.^ 

We  do  not  know  when  this  Psalm  was  written,  nor  do  we 
know  what  are  the  circumstances  which  called  it  forth, 
but  the  pious  Jew,  as  he  pondered  over  its  words,  might 
wonder  who  was  the  Anointed  and  who  was  the  Son,  and 
what  was  this  dominion  over  the  whole  earth,  and  the 
conception  would  grow  up  of  the  Messiah  who  was  the  Son 
of  God. 

Or  what  hopes  had  inspired,  and  what  visions  were 
aroused  by  that  poetical  description  of  the  ideal  reign  of 
the  ideal  king? 

Give  the  king  thy  judgments,  O  God, 

And  thy  righteousness  unto  the  king's  son. 

He  shall  judge  thy  people  with  righteousness 

And  thy  poor  with  judgment.  ... 

In  his  days  shall  the  righteous  flourish 

And  abundance  of  peace,  till  the  moon  be  no  more. 

Yea,  all  kings  shall  fall  down  before  him. 

All  nations  shall  serve  him.^ 

I  believe  that  Psalms  such  as  these  are  historical  poems, 
the  product  of  that  great  creative  age  of  Hebrew  hterature 
when  under  the  shadow  of  the  second  temple  the  pious 
IsraeHte  idealized  the  history  of  his  country,  and  gave 
us  this  fanciful  picture  of  the  reign  of  Solomon,  modelled 
on  the  empire  of  the  Ptolemies.  But  the  power  of  such  a 
poem  in  building  up  the  hopes  of  Israel  cannot  be  exaggerated. 

Or  once  more,  when  the  Jew  read: 

The  Lord  saith  unto  my  Lord,  Sit  thou  at  my  right  hand, 
Until  I  make  thine  enemies  thy  footstool. 
The  Lord  shall  send  forth  the  rod  of  thy  strength  out  of  Zion 
Rule  them  in  the  midst  of  thine  enemies.* 

^  Ps.  ii.  2  Ps.  Ixxii.  *  Ps.  ex.  i. 


THE  LATER  HOPE  297 

he  would  ask  who  is  this  Lord  whom  the  Lord  addresses. 
It  may  be  (although  I  do  not  feel  at  all  certain  that  it  is 
so)  that  it  is  Simon  the  Maccabee  that  is  here  referred  to, 
but  the  origin  of  the  Psalm  does  not  really  concern  us. 
However  it  arose  it  would  help  to  build  up  the  conception 
of  the  ideal  king  of  Israel,  with  his  close  association  with 
the  God  of  Israel,  and  if  the  second  Psalm  suggested  the 
title  Messiah,  this  would  suggest  the  designation  Lord. 

The  passages  which  we  have  examined  come  from  many 
writers  and  different  periods,  but  they  all  help  to  build  up 
the  expectations  of  an  ideal  future  for  Israel  associated  with 
an  ideal  ruler.  Israel  was  Httle  enough  in  the  eyes  of  the 
world;  it  had  to  submit  to  the  great  conquerors  who  one 
after  another  traversed  its  country,  to  Nebuchadnezzar, 
and  to  Cyrus,  and  to  Alexander,  to  the  Ptolemies  and  the 
Seleucidae,  but  there  never  died  out  this  unconquerable 
hope  for  the  future,  and  this  hope  is,  in  most  writers,  as- 
sociated with  an  ideal  figure  who  concentrates  in  his  own 
person  the  great  national  characteristic  of  righteousness. 

II 

We  come  next  to  the  later  Jewish  hope.  During  the 
time  of  the  Maccabees,  the  ordinary  Messianic  hope  appears 
to  have  been  in  abeyance.  The  actul  struggle  with  Hellen- 
ism absorbed  all  the  energies  of  the  people;  for  a  time  they 
were  dazzled  with  a  brilliant  and  unhoped-for  success,  and  left 
off  thinking  of  the  future.  Moreover,  when  the  leaders  of 
the  people  were  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  it  was  hardly  courteous 
to  talk  about  a  Messiah  of  the  house  of  Da\dd.  Yet  the 
book  of  Daniel  made  an  important  contribution  to  thought, 
when  it  described  the  vision  of  the  Ancient  of  Days  and 
one  like  unto  a  Son  of  Man  who  came  unto  Him,  to  whom 
was  given  the  dominion  and  glory  and  kingdom.^  To  the 
prophet  no  doubt  this  was  a  representation  of  the  ideal 
Israel,  and  it  is  interpreted  shortly  afterwards  as  the  Saints 
of  the  Most  High,  but  an  expression  had  been  evolved  sus- 
ceptible of  a  far  deeper  meaning  than  the  writer  himself 
had  ever  contemplated. 

^  Dan.  vii.  13,  14. 


298  THE   MESSIAH 

It  is  possible  that  as  the  Maccabean  monarchy  became 
established  a  new  conception  of  the  Messiah  grew,  which 
seemed  more  consonant  with  what  was  actually  happening. 
Why,  it  might  be  asked,  was  it  necessary  that  the  Messiah 
should  be  of  the  house  of  David;  why  not  of  the  house  of 
Levi,  that  tribe  from  which  came  the  high  priest  and  all  the 
priesthood,  from  which  in  these  later  days  had  come  the 
Saviours  of  Israel;  why  should  not  it  be  the  holy  stock 
through  which  redemption  was  to  come?  It  is  perhaps 
to  the  days  of  John  Hyrcanus,  the  high  priest,  who  was 
also  the  prophet  and  the  king,  that  is  due  the  new  concep- 
tion of  a  Messiah  of  the  house  of  Levi,  as  it  is  represented 
to  us  in  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  difficult  of  Jewish 
writings,  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs. 

The  Patriarch  Levi  is  represented  as  saying:  "I  saw  seven 
men  in  white  raiment,  saying  unto  me:  Arise,  put  on  the 
robe  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  crown  of  righteousness, 
and  the  breastplate  of  understanding,  and  the  garment  of 
truth,  and  the  plate  of  faith,  and  the  mitre  of  the  head,  and 
the  ephod  of  prophecy.  And  they  severally  carried  these 
things  and  put  them  on  me,  and  said  unto  me:  From  hence- 
forth become  a  priest  of  the  Lord,  thou  and  thy  seed  for  ever 
.  .  .  and  they  said  to  me:  Levi,  thy  seed  shall  be  divided 
into  three  offices,  for  a  sign  of  the  glory  of  the  Lord  who  is 
to  come.  And  the  first  portion  shall  be  great:  yea,  greater 
than  it  shall  none  be.  The  second  shall  be  in  the  priesthood. 
And  the  third  shall  be  called  by  a  new  name,  because  a  king 
shall  arise  in  Judah,  and  shall  establish  a  new  priesthood 
after  the  fashion  of  the  Gentiles,  and  his  presence  is  beloved, 
as  a  prophet  of  the  Most  High,  of  the  seed  of  Abraham 
our  father."^  This  passage  implies  the  attribution  of  great 
honour  to  the  house  of  Levi,  and  may  perhaps  be  the  origin 
of  a  form  of  thought  which  associated  the  hope  of  Israel 
with  that  tribe.  In  the  Testaments  as  we  have  them  the 
Messiah  comes  from  Levi  and  Judah,  but  that  probably 
means  a  conflation  of  the  traditions.  This  form  of  ex- 
pectation never  prevailed  widely,  but  sporadically  we  have 
references  to  a  Messiah  of  the  house  of  Levi. 

1  Testaments   of  the    Twelve   Patriarchs    (ed.    Charles,   Adam   and   Charles 
Black,  1908).    Lev.  viii. 


THE  VISION  OF  ENOCH  299 

It  was  in  the  disastrous  period  of  the  first  century  that 
the  Messianic  hope  became  strong.  The  degeneration  of 
the  Hasmonaean  monarchy,  and  the  terrible  cruelties  of 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  dissipated  the  feeling  of  satisfaction 
which  the  stirring  events  of  the  Maccabaean  revolt  had 
raised,  and  soon  Israel  found  itself  under  the  iron  yoke  of 
Rome.  The  feehng  arose,  how  long  will  the  Lord  withhold 
His  hand?  When  will  He  come  to  avenge  His  people?  And 
rehgious  visions  began  to  grow  as  the  realities  of  life  became 
more  grim.  A  writer  whose  work  is  preserved  to  us  under 
the  name  of  Enoch  elaborated  the  great  conception  of 
Daniel.  He  saw  a  vision  of  "One  who  had  a  head  of  days, 
and  his  head  was  white  like  wool,  and  with  him  was  another 
being  whose  countenance  had  the  appearance  of  a  man, 
and  his  face  was  full  of  graciousness,  like  one  of  the  holy 
angels.  .  .  .  This  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  hath  righteous- 
ness."^ He  is  called  also  the  Elect  One,  and  the  Anointed. 
It  is  His  function  to  execute  judgment.  There  will  be  a 
resurrection  of  all  Israel.  The  books  of  the  living  are  opened. 
All  judgment  is  committed  unto  the  Son  of  Man.  He  will 
judge  angels  and  men,  and  particularly  those  who  oppressed 
the  saints.  The  fallen  will  be  cast  into  a  fiery  furnace. 
The  kings  of  the  earth  will  be  tortured  in  Gehenna.  The 
righteous  shall  have  eternal  life,  and  the  Elect  One  shall 
dwell  among  them. 

I  have  already  given  you  an  account  of  the  Messianic 
kingdom  as  it  is  depicted  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon,^  it 
remains  only  to  add  the  description  of  the  Messiah:  "A 
righteous  king  and  taught  of  God  is  he  that  reigneth  over 
them;  and  there  shall  be  no  iniquity  in  his  days  in  their 
midst,  for  all  shall  be  holy  and  their  king  is  the  Lord  Messiah. 
He  shall  not  put  his  trust  in  horse  and  rider  and  bow,  nor 
shall  he  multiply  unto  himself  gold  and  silver  for  war,  nor 
by  ships  shall  he  gather  confidence  for  the  day  of  battle. 
The  Lord  himself  is  his  King,  and  the  hope  of  him  that  is 
strong  is  the  hope  of  God.  He  shall  have  mercy  upon  all 
the  nations  that  come  before  him  in  fear.  He  shall  bless 
the  people   of   the  Lord  with  wisdom   and   gladness.     He 

1  The  Book  of  Eiwch  (ed.  Charles,  Oxford,  191 2),  xlvi.  1-3. 

2  See  above,  p.  244. 


300  THE   MESSIAH 

himself  also  is  pure  from  sin.  He  shall  not  faint  all  his 
days  because  he  leaneth  upon  his  God.  Who  can  stand 
against  him?  for  he  is  mighty  in  his  works  and  strong  in  the 
fear  of  God,  tending  the  flock  of  the  Lord  with  faith  and 
righteousness;  and  he  shall  suffer  none  among  them  to  faint 
in  their  pasture.  In  holiness  shall  he  lead  them  all,  and 
there  shall  be  no  pride  among  them  that  any,  should  be 
oppressed."^ 

It  has  sometimes  been  maintained  that  the  Messianic 
expectation  did  not  really  exist  before  it  was  created  by 
Christianity.  There  were,  indeed,  passages  which  might 
be  so  interpreted  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  their  significance 
had  never  been  realized.  I  do  not  think  that  it  is  really 
possible  to  maintain  this  paradox,  for  such  it  is.  No  doubt 
there  were  periods  in  the  history  of  Israel  when  the  belief 
was  more  faint,  and  there  were  circles  of  thought  in  which 
it  did  not  prevail,  but  that  is  the  utmost  that  can  be  con- 
ceded. No  doubt  Josephus  says  little  about  it,  but  he  was 
writing  for  Romans  as  the  parasite  of  a  Roman  emperor, 
and  the  thought  of  a  rival  sovereign,  however  visionary,  was 
not  palatable  in  such  quarters.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
many  attempts  at  rebellion  which  he  narrates  in  his  history 
can  be  understood  only  if  there  was  such  a  hope  among  the 
people.  If  we  turn  to  the  Gospel  narrative,  it  clearly 
impHes  such  an  expectation  among  the  people,  and  we  have 
quite  sufficient  literary  evidence  to  support  it. 

It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  when  Jesus  came 
there  was  a  widespread  expectation  of  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah.  It  was  based  upon  the  Old  Testament.  It  took 
various  forms,  and  was  interpreted  according  to  the  spiritual 
and  intellectual  standpoint  of  different  individuals.  It 
might  take  the  form  of  an  earthly  king,  the  Son  of  David, 
or  a  supernatural  being,  the  Son  of  Man.  The  Messiah  was 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Lord  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  Associated 
sometimes  with  the  thought  of  an  earthly  kingdom,  some- 
times with  eschatological  expectations,  there  was  almost 
always  an  element  of  universaHsm  in  it  —  either  the  Jews 
would  rule  over  the  hated  Gentiles,  or  it  would  be  a  light 

1  Psalms   of  Solomon   (ed.    Ryle    and    James,    Cambridge,    1891),   xvii. 
35-46. 


THE   CLAIMS   OF  JESUS  301 

to  lighten  the  Gentiles.    The  whole  earth  would  acknowledge 
the  one  God. 

The  Jewish  conception  did  not  include  all  the  elements 
of  hope  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  was  not  apparently 
any  reference  to  the  prophetic  idea.  There  were  expectations 
of  the  coming  of  a  great  prophet  Hke  Moses,  but  his  work 
was  not  associated  with  the  Messiah.  There  was  also  no 
doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  and  the  servant  of  the  Lord 
in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah  was  not  interpreted  in  this 
sense.  The  servant  was  Israel.  There  was  no  doctrine, 
again,  of  atonement  associated  with  the  Messiah,  or  of 
redemption  through  Him.  The  Messianic  times,  indeed, 
were  times  of  cleansing  and  redemption,  but  the  idea  of  a 
Messiah  being  a  sacrifice  for  sin  had  no  existence.  Nor, 
again,  except  so  far  as  there  was  an  expectation  of  a  Messiah 
of  the  house  of  Levi  (and  such  a  form  of  the  belief  was  not 
common),  was  there  any  reference  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
priestly  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  fact,  if  we  compare 
the  current  Jewish  ideas  with  the  Old  Testament,  we  shall 
notice  that,  although  they  are  more  definite  and  precise, 
they  are  far  less  spiritual  and  far  narrower  in  their  outlook. 

Ill 

In  what  way  did  Jesus  think  of  His  office?  He  had  come 
as  the  Messiah,  the  expected  of  Israel;  He  had  gradually 
taught  His  disciples  to  recognize  who  He  was.  But  what 
sort  of  Messiah  did  He  claim  to  be? 

It  is  recorded  how,  at  His  baptism,  Jesus  heard  a  voice 
saying  unto  him,  "Thou  art  my  son,  my  beloved,"  and  it 
has  been  pointed  out  that  in  these  words  were  implied  two 
great  Old  Testament  conceptions.  The  Messiah  was  Son 
of  God;  this  was  clear  to  anyone  who  studied  the  Psalms, 
for  the  same  Psalm  which  spoke  of  Him  as  the  Anointed 
spoke  of  Him  as  the  Son.    But  what  did  the  Son  of  God  mean? 

We  are  told  that  at  the  trial  or  preliminary  investigation 
before  the  Sanhedrin,  the  high  priest  asked  Jesus,  "Art 
thou  the  Christ,  the  son  of  the  Blessed?"  Jesus  answered, 
"I  am."  It  was  His  only  definite  pubHc  claim  to  the 
title  and  office  of   the  Messiah.     It  was  made  with   the 


302  THE   MESSIAH 

expectation  of  death  before  Him,  and  in  full  consciousness 
of  what  it  would  mean.  Jesus  died  because  he  claimed 
to  be  the  Messiah  and  the  Son  of  God.  The  high  priest 
in  the  form  of  his  questions  showed  that  to  him  the  two 
names  were  identical.  Son  of  God  was  a  recognized  title 
of  the  Messiah.  It  was,  therefore,  natural  enough  that 
Jesus  had  never  used  it  of  Himself  —  to  have  done  so  would 
have  been  to  make  a  public  claim  before  the  time  —  but 
there  is  quite  sufficient  evidence  that  He  thought  of  Himself 
as,  in  an  especial  way,  related  to  the  Father,  and  that  He 
was  Son  in  a  sense  that  no  one  else  could  claim  to  be.  In 
the  agony  in  the  garden  He  prayed  that  if  possible  the  hour 
might  pass  from  Him;  "Father,"  He  prayed,  "all  things 
are  possible  to  thee;  take  away  this  cup  from  me;  but 
not  what  I  will,  but  what  thou  wiliest."^  "Not  every  one 
that  saith  unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is 
in  heaven."^  "I  appoint  you  a  kingdom  as  my  Father  hath 
appointed  unto  me."^  "The  angels  of  the  little  ones 
behold  always  the  face  of  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."* 
The  term  the  "Son  of  God"  might  be  used  with  many 
varieties  of  signification.  It  might  be  little  more  than  an 
honorary  title  for  a  king;  it  might  have  a  purely  moral 
signification;  it  might  mean  only  the  good  man  who  could 
be  called  the  Son  of  God;  but  it  seems  as  if  Jesus  used  it 
in  a  different  and  much  more  intimate  signification.  In 
St.  Mark's  Gospel,  when  speaking  of  the  last  things,  He  adds, 
"Of  that  day  and  of  that  hour  knoweth  no  one,  neither  the 
angels  in  heaven  nor  the  Son,  but  the  Father."^  ^  It  is  hardly 
likely  that  this  passage  which  seems  to  limit  Jesus'  know- 
ledge would  have  been  the  work  of  the  Christian  Church, 
yet,  though  it  limits  the  knowledge,  it  means  the  claim  of 
a  position  transcending  angels  and  men.  In  The  Discourses 
was  found  another  saying  of  Jesus  even  more  remarkable, 
"All  things  are  delivered  to  me  by  my  Father,  and  no  one 
knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father,  nor  does  any  one  know 
the  Father  save  the  Son  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  shall 
reveal  him."^ 

1  Mk.  xiv.  36.  2  Mt.  vii.  21.  '  Lk.  xxii.  29. 

*  Mt.  xviii.  10.  5  jvik.  xiii.  32.  ^  Mt.  xi.  27;   Lk.  x.  22. 


SON  OF   MAN  303 

When  we  turn  to  St.  John's  Gospel,  we  find  this  relation- 
ship of  the  Father  and  the  Son  worked  out  at  length.  Even 
if  we  do  not  consider  that  the  speeches  in  which  this  is 
done  represent  more  than  the  interpretation  of  the  writer, 
yet  it  has  already  been  suggested  on  more  than  one  occasion 
that  the  Johannine  interpretation  represents  the  spirit  of 
Christ.  Jesus  did  not  talk  or  talk  often  as  St.  John  repre- 
sents Him;  but  St.  John  represents  Him  as  so  talking  be- 
cause he  knew,  what  the  other  Gospels  tell  us,  that  Jesus, 
when  He  thought  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God,  meant  that 
God  was  in  Him,  and  He  in  God,  and  this  in  a  different  way 
to  any  other.  Jesus  thought  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God, 
for  the  Scriptures  told  Him  that  the  Messiah  was  the  Son  of 
God,  but  in  Him  this  term,  as  all  others  that  He  uses,  has  a 
deeper  and  more  spiritual  signification. 

When  Jesus  confessed  to  the  high  priest  that  He  was 
the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  He  added,  "Ye  shall  see  the 
Son  of  Man  sitting  at  the  right  hand  of  power  and  coming 
with  the  clouds  of  heaven,"^  claiming  for  Himself,  that  is, 
both  the  title  Son  of  Man  and  also  the  functions  ascribed 
in  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Messiah.  "The  Son  of  Man 
would  come  with  the  clouds  of  heaven." ^  The  Lord  would 
sit  on  God's  right  hand,  and  all  His  enemies  would  fall 
beneath  His  feet.  Unlike  the  title  Son  of  God,  the  title  Son 
of  Man  is  represented  in  the  Gospels  as  one  habitually  used 
by  Jesus,  and  it  hardly  occurs  elsewhere  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. Under  these  circumstances  the  claim  of  Bousset  that 
the  title  was  never  used  by  our  Lord  but  was  given  Him  by 
the  Church  seems  somewhat  bold. 

The  title  itself  has  a  complicated  history.  When  the  phrase 
first  meets  us  it  is  a  paraphrase  for  man,  following  a  natural 
Semitic  idiom:  "Lord,  what  is  man  that  thou  art  mindful  of 
him,  or  the  Son  of  Man  that  thou  visitest  him?"^  It  occurs 
regularly  in  Ezekiel  as  the  title  used  by  the  Almighty  in 
addressing  the  prophet,  and  in  Daniel,  as  we  have  seen,  it 
means  a  being  of  human  form.  But  Daniel  had  created  a 
picture  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  through  him  it  became  a 
title  designating  the  Messiah  as  a  supernatural  being.  So  it 
was  used  in  the  book  of  Enoch,  and  perhaps  elsewhere. 

^  Mk.  xlv.  62.  2  Dan.  vii.  13.  '  Ps.  cxliv.  3. 


304  THE   MESSIAH 

The  usage  by  our  Lord  has  caused  some  perplexity.  He 
employs  it  generally  in  the  third  person,  "The  Son  of  Man 
is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath."  "Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the 
heaven  open  and  the  Son  of  Man  descending  in  power." 
And  the  question  has  been  asked,  Did  Jesus  so  think  of 
Himself?  Was  He  not  rather  as  a  humble  prophet  merely 
foretelling  the  coming  of  the  Messiah?  But  His  disciples 
misunderstood  Him  and  thought  he  spake  of  Himself. 
The  test  for  such  theories  is.  Do  they  apply  universally? 
Are  there  passages  which  may  reasonably  be  considered 
authentic  to  which  they  do  not  apply?  I  think  it  is  clear 
that  the  words  addressed  to  the  high  priest  must  have  come 
from  Jesus,  and  that  He  is  speaking  of  Himself.  And  what 
of  the  following:  "Foxes  have  holes  and  the  birds  of  the  air 
have  nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his 
head."^  These  words  clearly  come  from  Jesus;  He  is 
speaking  of  Himself  and  designating  Himself  as  the  Son  of 
Man.  I  do  not  think  there  are  any  legitimate  grounds  for 
distrusting  the  obvious  interpretation  of  the  Gospels. 

But  this  leads  us  to  Jesus'  use  of  the  term.  The  Son  of 
Man  in  Daniel  is  associated  with  a  vision  of  the  Almighty. 
In  Enoch  it  represents  the  Messiah  as  coming  to  judgment. 
When  Jesus  used  it,  it  meant  that  He  claimed  to  be  the 
Messiah  from  heaven,  that  He  believed  that  to  Him  as  the 
Messiah  was  extended  dominion  and  authority,  that  the 
final  judgment  of  all  men,  the  reward  of  the  righteous  and 
the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  would  be  exercised  through 
Him,  and  He  uses  in  the  description  of  His  ofhce  the  language 
of  Jewish  imagination.  We  certainly  need  not  be  too 
anxious  to  take  all  the  phraseology  literally,  but  we  cannot 
doubt  that  Jesus  claimed  for  Himself  the  functions  associated 
with  the  word. 

But  we  have  not  yet  exhausted  the  meaning  of  the  word 
as  used  by  Him.  The  Son  of  Man  represented  to  earlier 
writers  the  glory  and  exaltation  of  the  Messiah,  but  Jesus 
always  employs  it  when  He  wishes  to  speak  of  His  humilia- 
tion:. "The  Son  of  Man  is  delivered  into  the  hands  of  men; 
and  they  shall  slay  him."  And  equally  significant  is  the  use 
of  the  word  in  regard  to  the  human  sympathies  of  Jesus: 

1  Mt.  viii.  20;   Lk,  ix.  58. 


THE   SERVANT  305 

"The  Son  of  Man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  is 
lost."^  Although  when  Jesus  thought  of  Himself  as  the 
Son  of  Man  He  claimed  a  more  than  human  office,  yet  He 
saw  His  glory  always  through  His  abasement,  and  He 
thought  of  His  divine  functions  in  relation  to  the  suffering 
of  humanity. 

It  may  be  asked  why  it  was  this  designation  that  Jesus 
particularly  used.  I  think  that  it  is  probable  that  the 
phrase  was  less  common  as  a  designation  of  the  Messiah 
than  some  others,  and  would  not  arouse  such  suspicion  and 
resentment.  It  enabled  Him  to  speak  of  the  judgment  and 
divine  retribution  in  a  manner  which  would  carry  conviction, 
and  there  were  associations  connected  with  the  word  which 
enabled  it  to  express  not  only  His  divine  prerogatives,  but 
also  His  human  sympathies.  The  word  is  used  in  St.  John's 
Gospel  in  a  way  which  interprets  and  develops  these 
thoughts.  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven,  but 
it  is  the  Son  of  Man  who  is  glorified  in  the  Passion  and 
Crucifixion. 

When  at  the  baptism  Jesus  is  addressed  as  "the  beloved 
in  whom  I  am  well  pleased,"  a  new  idea  is  associated  with 
the  Messianic  conception.  The  reference  is  clearly  to  a 
well-known  passage  of  Isaiah:  "Behold  my  servant,  whom 
I  uphold;  my  chosen  in  whom  my  soul  delighteth:  I  have 
put  my  spirit  upon  him."^  It  is  clear  that  Jesus  thought 
of  Himself  as  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  whose  miseries  and 
sufferings  are  delineated  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book  of 
Isaiah,  and  it  was  on  that  book  more  than  any  other  in 
the  Old  Testament  that  his  conceptions  were  formed. 
When  He  first  preached  at  Nazareth  (St.  Luke  tells  us) 
He  read  the  passage  beginning,  "The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  me,  because  he  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tidings 
to  the  poor,"^  and  stated  that  that  day  was  the  Scripture 
fulfilled.  He  quoted  the  same  passage  in  His  answer  to 
John  the  Baptist,'^  and  elsewhere  it  is  the  words  of  this  book 
that  have  helped  to  fashion  His  language  and  mould  His 
thought.  But  if,  as  is  clear.  He  thought  of  Himself  as  the 
Servant,  other  ideas  must  inevitably  come  in.     The  Servant 

1  Lk.  xix.  10.  2  Is.  xlii.  i. 

3  Lk.  iv.  18.  *  Mt.  xi.  5;   Lk.  vii.  22. 


3o6  THE  MESSIAH 

suffered,  and  His  sufferings  were  redemptive,  and  these 
ideas,  therefore,  must  also  have  helped  in  fashioning  His 
teaching.  That  which  was  written  had  to  be  fulfilled  in 
Him,  "And  he  was  reckoned  among  the  transgressors "; '^ 
and  when  he  said,  "The  Son  of  Man  hath  not  come  to  be 
ministered  to,  but  to  minister  and  to  give  his  Ufe  a  ransom 
for  many,"  2  he  was  no  doubt  thinking  of  such  passages  as 
"He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied; 
by  his  knowledge  shall  my  righteous  servant  justify  many: 
and  he  shall  bear  their  iniquities."^  The  original  Messianic 
idea  depicted  a  king  and  a  conqueror,  the  apocalyptic 
dreamer  thought  of  a  divine  Messiah  pre-existent  in  heaven, 
but  when  Jesus  reading  with  His  clear  and  penetrating  mind 
modelled  His  thoughts  on  the  conception  of  the  Servant  of 
the  Lord,  new  ideas  came  in  of  suffering,  death,  redemption, 
and  the  full  meaning  of  the  work  of  the  Messiah  began  to 
be  realized. 

In  the  later  days  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  when  the 
phraseology  of  Christianity  began  to  adapt  itself  to  Gentile 
ideas,  one  of  the  commonest  designations  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  "the  Lord."  That  was  natural  enough.  It  had  a 
meaning  which  no  other  word  could  then  have  had.  It  was 
used  ahke  of  kingly  and  divine  prerogatives,  and  was  a 
common  designation  of  the  heathen  gods.  It  was  natural 
that  the  title,  "the  Son  of  Man,"  which  had  no  association 
outside  Judaism,  should  give  way  to  what  had  become  a 
more  expressive  term.  But  "the  Lord"  was  a  term  which 
also  had  its  roots  in  Judaism,^  and  was  probably  accepted 
by  Jesus  as  part  of  the  designation  of  the  Messiah.  When  the 
Psalmist  said  "the  Lord  said  unto  my  Lord,"  he  may  very 
probably  have  been  designating  an  earthly  ruler,  but  when 
the  original  meaning  had  been  lost,  it  would  be  naturally 
associated  with  the  Messiah,  and  I  do  not  doubt  that  that 
is  the  origin  of  the  expression  "the  Lord  Messiah"  which 
meets  us  in  the  Psalms  of  Solomon.  The  word  "Lord"  was 
addressed  to  Jesus,  He  is  spoken  of  as  the  Lord,  and  the  use 

1  Lk.  xxii.  37.  2  ]v[Ij_  X.  45.  ^  Is.  liii.  11. 

*  As  a  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  title  Lord  is  not  exclusively  of  Greek  origin 
may  be  cited  the  words  "Maran  atha"  (the  Lord  is  at  hand)  (i  Cor.  xvi. 
22),  which  show  that  it  was  current  in  Aramaic. 


SON  OF  DAVID  307 

of  the  term  seems  to  hover  between  a  title  of  courtesy  and 
respect,  and  a  fuller  religious  meaning.  "Not  every  one  that 
saith  unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is 
in  heaven,"^  and  when  Jesus  asks,  "if  David  in  spirit 
calleth  him  Lord,  how  is  he  his  Son?"^  He  is  ascribing  to 
the  Messiah  the  functions  of  Lordship. 

One  of  the  commonest  of  the  popular  designations  of  the 
Messiah  was  Son  of  David.  How  did  Jesus  think  of  this? 
It  was  a  term  used  in  addressing  Him.  When  the  company 
of  enthusiastic  Galilaeans  is  marching  to  Jerusalem  from 
Jericho  on  the  final  journey,  bhnd  Bartimaeus  cries  out  to 
Him,  "Thou  Son  of  David,  have  mercy  upon  me,"^  and  as 
Jesus  enters  into  Jerusalem  to  declare  Himself  as  Messiah, 
it  is  the  kingdom  of  our  father  David  ^  that  expresses  the 
hopes  of  the  people.  No  doubt  that  was  what  most  men 
longed  for.  But  Jesus  never  used  the  designation.  It  was 
not  that  he  rejected  the  hopes  of  a  new  kingdom  of  David, 
or  that  He  did  not  claim  to  fulfil  them,  but  He  believed  that 
they  would  be  fulfilled  in  quite  a  difi^erent  way  to  what 
men  had  expected,  and  He  could  not  use  the  term  that  was 
likely  to  be  misleading.  So  He  did  not  speak  of  Himself 
as  the  Son  of  David. 

IV 

It  seems  probable  that  there  was  among  Jewish  theo- 
logians much  discussion  about  the  Messiah.  There  was  a 
desire  to  know  when  he  w^ould  come,  what  his  work  and 
office  would  be,  above  all,  how,  when  he  came,  his  presence 
would  be  known,  and  how  the  true  Messiah  might  be  dis- 
tinguished from  false  Messiahs.  Knowing  as  we  do  the 
character  of  Jewish  theology,  we  may  suspect  that  the  signs 
of  the  Messiah  would  largely  consist  of  a  number  of  external 
characteristics  based  very  often  on  a  doubtful  exegesis. 
We  have  some  instances  of  this  in  the  New  Testament. 
Herod  enquires  of  the  chief  priests  and  scribes  where  the 
Messiah  should  be  born,  and  they  answer  in  Bethlehem  of 
Judaea,  basing  their  answer  on  the  words  of  the  prophet 

^  Mt.  vii.  21.  2  Mk.  xii.  37. 

'  Mk.  X.  47.  4  Mk.  xi.  10. 

21 


3o8  THE   MESSIAH 

Micah.  So  the  disciples  coming  down  from  the  mountain 
after  the  Transfiguration  are  concerned  because  the  scribes 
say  that  EHas  must  first  come.  Here  was  another  sign  of 
the  Messiah  which  might  be  deduced  from  the  words  of 
Malachi.  So  again  Jesus  asks,  How  say  the  scribes  that 
the  Christ  is  the  Son  of  David?  No  doubt  there  were  many 
other  signs  of  the  Messiah  discussed  in  learned  circles. 

It  was  natural  that,  in  the  early  days  of  the  Christian 
Church,  the  disciples  who  searched  the  Scriptures  in  order 
that  they  might  show  how  they  testified  to  the  Christ  should 
seek  to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah  according  to  the 
correct  methods  of  the  time.  This  is  just  what  St.  Matthew, 
who  was  writing  for  Jewish  Christians,  does.  He  gives  us 
a  genealogy  to  prove  a  genuine  Davidic  descent.  He 
describes  and  lays  emphasis  on  the  birth  at  Bethlehem, 
as  a  signal  proof  of  Jesus'  claims.  He  gives  a  number  of 
incidents,  all  of  which  he  represents  as  the  literal  fulfilment 
of  Old  Testament  prophecies.  Throughout  the  Gospel, 
whenever  an  opportunity  seems  to  occur,  he  shows  how  the 
incident  recorded  had  been  foretold.  The  whole  was  for 
his  readers  a  very  convincing  series  of  arguments. 

To  us  they  have  not  quite  the  same  value.  There  is  no 
reason  for  thinking  that  the  facts  may  not  have  been  in 
many  cases  as  they  are  described.  There  is  no  improba- 
bility in  Joseph  and  Mary  being  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and 
reputed  descendants  of  David,  and  genealogies  among  the 
Jews  would  be  carefully  preserved.  The  reason  given  by 
St.  Luke  for  the  birth  at  Bethlehem  has  been  shown  by  recent 
discovery  to  be  quite  possible.  Whether  others  of  the  birth 
stories  are  historical  or  not  we  cannot  say.  In  some  cases 
we  certainly  seem  to  be  in  the  region  of  poetry  and  myth. 
Some  of  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  are  used 
in  a  way  which  would  seem  to  us  legitimate;  in  other  cases 
we  could  not  now  justify  the  methods  of  exegesis.  The 
words  "out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my  son"  certainly  did 
not  refer  to  the  Messiah  when  they  were  first  spoken.  The 
voice  that  was  heard  in  Ramah,  and  the  weeping  of  Rachel, 
did  not  in  Jeremiah  refer  to  Bethlehem  at  all.  In  fact, 
while  St.  Matthew's  argument  would  probably  have  seemed 
to  many  contemporaries  convincing,  it  presents  to  modern 


THE   SIGNS   OF  THE  MESSIAH  309 

readers  great  difficulties.  And  the  same  might  be  said  of 
much  that  we  read  in  Justin  Martyr's  dialogue  with  Trypho 
the  Jew  and  other  patristic  expositions  of  the  Messianic 
claim, 

■  I  do  not  myself  feel  certain  of  the  historical  character  of 
all  the  early  stories  about  our  Lord,  and  I  am  certain  that 
a  great  deal  of  the  exegesis  is  untenable,  but  I  do  not  think 
we  need  really  be  troubled  by  either  of  these  things,  for 
what  I  want  you  to  notice  is  how  entirely  absent  from  our 
Lord's  teaching  are  any  of  these  things.  As  has  already 
been  pointed  out.  His  use  of  Scripture  is  quite  different, 
and  He  never  bases  His  claim  on  the  fulfilment  of  con- 
ventional signs.  He  does,  indeed,  claim  that  John  had 
fulfilled  the  prophecy  about  Elijah,  but  this  was  not  a 
small  point.  It  was  part  of  the  great  spiritual  movement 
which  was  consummated  in  Himself.  He  seems  to  doubt 
whether  the  claim  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  Son  of 
David  gave  an  adequate  explanation  of  the  office,  and  He 
does  not  seek  to  fulfil  conventional  prophecies  in  a  Hteral 
way.  There  is  one  very  significant  exception.  When  He 
enters  Jerusalem  to  assert  His  claims  as  Messiah,  He  re- 
members the  prophecy  of  Zechariah:  "Rejoice  greatly,  O 
daughter  of  Zion;  shout,  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem:  behold 
thy  king  cometh  unto  thee;  he  is  just  and  having  salvation; 
lowly  and  riding  upon  an  ass,  even  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an 
ass,"^  and  in  this  way  He  enters  the  holy  city.  It  was  a 
symbolism  quite  in  accordance  with  the  methods  of  the 
prophets.  It  might  testify  how  different  was  this  King  to 
what  the  Jews  had  expected,  how  different  His  kingdom; 
lowhness,  righteousness,  salvation  were  to  be  the  notes  of 
His  reign.  It  was  a  fitting  prelude  to  the  Passion.  And  it 
was  characteristic  of  St.  Matthew  that  the  important  point 
for  him  lay  in  a  literal  verbal  fulfilment,  the  she-ass  with 
the  young  colt  running  by  her  side. 

The  conception  Jesus  had  of  His  office  was  far  different 
from  anything  that  people  had  imagined.  He  had,  we  have 
seen  reason  to  believe,  formed  His  mind  (if  we  may  venture 
to  use  the  phrase)  on  a  spiritual  study  of  the  word  of  God, 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament.    They  foretold  (as  almost 

^  Zech.  ix.  9, 


310  THE  MESSIAH 

all  men  held)  the  coming  of  a  Messiah,  but  when  Jesus  read 
them  and  pondered  over  them,  it  became  very  clear  that 
the  Messiah  that  they  foretold  was  very  different  from  what 
most  people  expected.  He  knew  Himself  the  Messiah  — 
when  or  how  the  conviction  came  to  Him  we  cannot  tell. 
It  was  certainly  confirmed  and  completed  in  His  baptism; 
and  knowing  Himself  to  be  the  Messiah,  He  felt  that  He 
was  fulfilling  all  God's  purpose  in  the  Old  Testament.  He 
had  come  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  He  was  not  come  to 
destroy  but  to  fulfil.  So  He  thought  of  Himself  as  fulfilhng 
all  the  lines  of  hope  of  the  Old  Testament.  He  was,  indeed, 
the  King  of  the  house  of  David,  but  the  kingdom  which  He 
would  found  was  to  be  a  kingdom  of  righteousness.  That 
was  what  the  prophets  taught  Him,  What  an  ideal  vision 
of  the  future  had  they  seen!  "A  new  heart  also  will  I 
give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you."^  He 
thought  of  Himself  as  Lord,  but  His  rule  was  in  the  hearts 
of  His  followers.  They  would  not  fulfil  His  purpose  by 
calling  Him  Lord,  but  by  doing  the  will  of  the  Father.  He 
thought  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  it  meant  not  only 
an  honorific  title  of  the  Messiah,  but  an  intimate  union 
between  Himself  and  God,  of  which  He  was  conscious.  He 
thought  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of  Man;  it  implied  lofty 
claims,  for  Daniel  had  seen  the  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man 
coming  to  the  Ancient  of  Days,  but  He  connected  it  also 
with  His  life  on  earth.  His  humiliations  and  suffering.  He 
thought  of  Himself  as  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  and  that 
meant  beneficent  work  for  God  among  men,  but  also 
suffering  and  death  for  Himself  in  the  fulfilment  of  His 
ministry,  and  redemption  through  death.  These  do  not 
exhaust  His  conception  of  His  office,  but  they  all  harmonize 
with  the  fulfilment  of  everything  that  was  most  spiritual 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

For  there  were  in  the  Old  Testament  many  and  various 
elements,  and  at  different  times  in  the  history  of  Israel 
different  aspects  had  been  prominent.  The  remarkable 
thing  is  that  all  alike  seem  to  be  summed  up  in  Christ,  and 
that  so  naturally  and  spontaneously  that  we  hardly  realize 
the  origin  of  the  picture.     Dr.  Sanday  has  expressed  this 

*  Ezek.  xviii.  31. 


THE   CONCLUSION  311 

admirably  in  one  of  the  most  eloquent  and  luminous 
passages  of  his  Bampton  Lectures  on  Inspiration.  "We 
turn  the  page,"  he  writes,  "which  separates  the  New 
Testament  from  the  Old.  We  look  at  the  Figure  which  is 
deHneated  there,  and  we  find  in  it  a  most  marvellous  meeting 
of  traits  derived  from  the  most  different  and  distant  sources, 
from  Nathan,  from  Amos,  from  First  Isaiah,  from  Second 
Isaiah,  from  Zechariah,  from  Daniel,  from  the  second  Psalm, 
from  the  twenty-second,  from  the  sixty-ninth,  from  the 
hundred  and  tenth.  And  these  traits  do  not  meet,  as  we 
might  expect  them  to  do,  in  some  laboured  and  artificial 
compound,  but  in  the  sweet  and  gracious  figure  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  —  King,  but  not  as  men  count  kingship;  crowned, 
but  with  the  crown  of  thorns;  suffering  for  our  redemption, 
but  suffering  only  that  he  may  reign."  ^ 


We  have  now  completed  some  portion  of  our  task,  and 
may  pause  to  review  our  progress.  We  have  set  out  to 
describe  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  the  Christ.  We 
recognize  that  it  is  a  task  of  grave  difficulty,  that  many  have 
attempted  it,  and  that  although  all  may  have  achieved 
something,  all  have  failed.  All  we  can  hope  is  that  we, 
too,  may  have  achieved  something.  Our  purpose  was  to 
construct  a  hfe  on  the  basis  of  the  material  before  us,  with- 
out presuppositions  either  positive  or  negative;  not  to  as- 
sume what  Christian  tradition  has  taught  about  Jesus,  but 
not  to  deny  it.  The  one  presupposition  that  we  have  al- 
lowed ourselves  is  that  we  must  be  able  to  account  for  the 
fact  of  Christianity.  A  religion  of  such  universal  spiritual 
significance  could  not  be  the  result  of  astral  fancies  or  any 
such  thing.  Our  method  has  been  to  construct  our  story  out 
of  our  material,  primary  and  secondary,  as  we  might  do 
in  secular  history,  and  then  consider  whether  we  have  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  a  coherent  and  consistent  narrative. 

Our  first  business  is  with  the  life  itself.  The  narrative  of 
St.  Mark,  studied  without  presuppositions,  seems  to  give  us 
a  story,  both  probable  in  itself  and  one  that  harmonizes 

*  Inspiration,  by  W.  Sanday,  D.D.,  pp.  404,  405 


^312  THE   MESSIAH 

with  what  we  know  of  the  circumstances  of  the  time  and 
country.  Both  in  St.  Luke  and  St.  Matthew  the  probable 
sequence  of  events  seems  to  have  been  somewhat  disturbed, 
but  the  further  material  that  they  have  given  us  will 
generally,  if  not  always,  fit  into  the  rest  of  the  story.  The 
Gospel  of  St.  John  will  demand  further  examination,  but 
it  seems  to  preserve  independent  tradition  of  considerable 
value.  The  history,  as  so  far  constructed,  I  would  put 
before  you  as  giving  an  account  of  the  Hfe  of  Jesus  as  it  may 
well  have  happened  —  an  accout  I  would  submit,  at  any 
rate,  more  probable  than  some  others  which  begin  by  casting 
doubts  on  the  credibility  of  their  source. 

But  there  is  one  particular  historical  phenomenon,  which 
demands  separate  investigation  —  the  question  of  miracles. 
Here,  again,  I  started  without  assuming  either  that  they 
had  occurred  or  that  they  could  not  have  occurred.  I 
assumed  that  there  might  be  spiritual  phenomena  incon- 
sistent with  ordinary  experience  —  that  is  to  say,  I  did  not 
rule  them  out  on  a  priori  grounds.  What  I  would  suggest 
to  you  as  the  result  of  our  examination  is  that  these  miracles 
of  the  Gospel  harmonize  with  the  rest  of  the  picture  of  the 
work  of  Christ.  They  are  restrained;  they  are  beneficent; 
they  are  not  made  the  main  purpose  of  the  ministry;  they 
rather  take  their  place  as  something  characteristic  but 
subordinate;  they  exhibit  the  same  spiritual  authority 
and  power  as  the  words  and  work  of  Jesus.  They  are  in 
keeping  with  the  rest  of  the  narrative.  I  must  leave  it  to 
each  person  to  decide  whether  he  feels  compelled  to  eliminate 
them  on  grounds  clearly  other  than  critical. 

The  most  important  part  of  our  investigation  was  the 
teaching  of  Jesus,  and  here  the  relation  of  our  sources  is 
somewhat  different.  Our  information  comes  from  a  wider 
field.  We  have  at  least  four  different  collections  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  —  St.  Mark,  The  Discourses,  a  collection  of 
sayings  and  parables  in  St.  Luke,  a  considerable  amount  of 
material  in  St.  Matthew.  All  these  collections  seem  to 
present  to  us  the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  as  it  was  preserved 
in  the  first  Christian  generation.  Occasionally  there  might 
seem  to  be  later  elements,  but  for  the  most  part  it  is 
homogeneous  in  character.     There  are  few,  if  any,  signs  of 


THE   CENTRAL  FACTS   OF   CHRISTIANITY     313 

successive  strata  of  teaching  or  of  development  of  doctrine. 
On  the  basis  of  that  material,  with  occasional  illustrations 
from  St.  John's  Gospel,  we  have  attempted  to  construct 
the  teaching  of  Jesus  about  the  Christian  life,  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  and  the  conception  of  the  Messiah.  We  have 
found  a  remarkable  consistency  in  these  presentations.  In 
the  first  place,  there  is  not  in  this  teaching  any  sign  of 
anachronisms.  In  the  language,  in  the  categories  of  thought, 
in  the  problems  that  it  discusses,  it  fits  in  with  all  that  we 
know  of  the  ideas  and  aspirations  of  the  time.  We  tried 
to  reconstruct  the  education  of  Jesus,  the  influences  to 
which  He  must  have  been  subject  in  His  home  in  Galilee, 
and  we  saw  how  in  its  form  and  presentation  the  teaching 
exactly  corresponded  to  these  circumstances. 

And  then  as  to  its  content.  While  it  is  throughout 
derived  from,  and  based  on,  the  Old  Testament,  it  represents 
a  most  remarkable  transformation  of  that  material.  It 
seizes  on  and  develops  its  most  spiritual  ideas,  and  puts  on 
one  side  everything  that  is  temporary  and  inadequate.  It 
makes  the  whole  of  life  dependent  on  the  fulfilment  of  the 
will  of  God,  and  the  right  attitude  of  the  devout  soul  to 
God.  It  makes  faith  and  love  the  central  fact  in  the 
Christian  Hfe.  It  looks  upon  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the 
ideal  for  man,  and  sees  in  the  kingdom  of  God  the  fulfilment 
of  God's  will  and  righteousness.  All  these  things  come  from 
the  Old  Testament.  Some  few  had  found  this  or  that  rule 
of  life,  but  in  Jesus  they  mean  the  transformation  of  all 
human  life. 

Jesus  was  the  Messiah.  As  such  He  fulfilled  all  that  the 
Old  Testament  had  to  teach,  but  He  always  transcended  it. 
As  the  Son  of  God  He  lived  in  intimate  union  with  the 
Father.  As  the  Servant  of  God  He  fulfilled  God's  will  on 
earth.    As  the  Son  of  Man  He  was  the  Judge  of  mankind. 

Our  task  is  only  half  completed,  but  I  would  suggest  to 
you  that  there  is  a  homogeneity  and  consistency  about  the 
life  and  the  teaching,  which  we  cannot  but  look  upon  as  a 
strong  proof  of  authenticity;  and  the  teaching  bears  the 
impress  of  a  single  mind.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  that 
would  be  true  of  everything  in  the  Gospels.  If  Jesus  had 
once  taught  in  a  particular  way,  those  who  heard  Him,  and 


314  THE  MESSIAH 

those  who  heard  of  Him,  might  construe  and  interpret  that 
teaching  as,  indeed,  the  author  of  the  fourth  Gospel  seems 
to  have  done.  What  I  do  mean  is,  that  the  teaching  of 
Jesus,  as  contained  in  the  Gospels,  is  not  a  collection  of 
different  opinions  held  by  various  individuals  during  a 
period  of  from  fifty  to  seventy  years,  but  a  homogeneous 
whole  coming  from  one  teacher  of  intense  spiritual  power. 
What  further  this  may  imply  we  must  leave  to  the  sequel 
of  our  investigation. 


NOTE  ON  THE  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE 
GOSPELS 

The  chronology  of  the  hfe  of  our  Lord  is  a  subject  on  which  it 
is  not  possible  at  present  to  arrive  at  conclusions  which  will  be 
universally  accepted.  The  data  are  few,  and  it  is  not  easy  to 
reconcile  them.  The  limits  of  variation,  indeed,  are  not  great; 
but  the  construction  of  an  exact  and  certain  chronology,  such 
as  is  so  great  a  help  to  sound  history,  is  not  yet  possible.  In 
these  notes,  I  have  taken  as  my  starting-point  Dr.  Turner's 
article  on  "Chronology"  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary  (vol.  i., 
pp.  403  /[.)  —  although  I  do  not  always  agree  with  his  conclusions 
—  and  the  detailed  information  in  Lewin's  Fasti  Sacri. 

I.  The  Date  of  the  Birth  of  Jesus.  —  The  birth  of  Jesus 
was: 

(i)  During  the  reign  of  Herod  the  Great.  On  this  all  authori- 
ties agree.  That  is,  it  was  before  the  Passover  of  the  year  4  B.C. 
Probably,  also,  it  was,  as  the  narrative  in  St.  Matthew  suggests, 
some  little  time  before,  not  less  than  two  years. 

(2)  According  to  St.  Luke,  about  thirty  years  before  the 
beginning  of  His  minstry.  This  took  place  some  time  after  the 
summer  of  28  B.C.,  and  perhaps  early  in  a.d.  30.  The  word 
"about"  gives  us  considerable  latitude,  and  side  by  side  with 
it  must  be  placed  the  tradition  given  by  Irenaeus  on  the  au- 
thority of  the  elders  that  Jesus  was  above  forty  years  old  at  the 
time  of  His  death  (Iren.,  Adv.  Haer.,  H.,  xxxiii.  4). 

(3)  According  to  St.  Luke,  at  the  time  of  a  census.  This  was 
a  census  of  the  whole  Roman  Empire,  ordered  by  Augustus,  the 
first  of  a  series,  and  carried  out  in  Syria  by  Quirinius.  "  This 
was  the  first  enrolment  made  while  Quirinius  was  Governor  of 
Syria  (Lk.  ii.  2)." 

To  discuss  the  many  difficulties  raised  by  this  verse  would 
need  more  than  one  dissertation.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  us  to 
concentrate  our  attention  on  certain  leading  points. 

(i.)  There  was  quite  certainly  a  census  held  by  Quirinius  in 
A.D.  6,  when  Archelaus  was  deposed,  and  it  has  been  held  that 
the  introduction  of  this  date  is  a  blunder  of  St.  Luke,  probably 
based  on  a  careless  reading  of  Josephus. 

(ii.)  In  St.  Luke's  narrative  we  must  distinguish  carefully 
between  the  fact  of  the  census  and  the  date.  The  former  is 
supported  by  the  narrative,  the  latter  may  be  only  a  mistaken 
attempt  at  fixing  the  chronology.      If  that  is  the  explanation, 

31S 


3i6       THE  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

the  deduction  that  I  would  draw  is  that  St.  Luke  had  not  read 
Josephus;  if  he  had  done  so,  he  would  probably  have  avoided  the 
error. 

(iii.)  Discoveries  of  papyri  made  in  Egypt  have  thrown  much 
light  on  the  census  in  the  Roman  Empire.  It  has  been  shown 
that  the  story  contained  in  St.  Luke  was  probable  and,  in  par- 
ticular, that  it  was  the  custom  to  summon  people  to  their  own 
homes  to  be  enrolled.  The  census,  as  later  evidence  shows,  was 
held  systematically  at  intervals  of  fifteen  years,  and  if  there  was 
one  held  in  a.d.  6-7,  then  there  may  have  been  one  held  in  9-8  B.C. 

(iv.)  Tertullian  tells  us  there  was  a  census  held  in  Judaea 
under  C.  Sentius  Saturninus,  who  was  Governor  of  Syria  about 
9-6  B.C.     (Tertullian,  Adv.  Marcionem.,  iv.  19.) 

(v.)  The  tendency,  therefore,  of  recent  discovery  is,  on  the 
whole,  perhaps  to  corroborate  the  suggestion  of  Lewin  (Fasti 
Sacri,  p.  xxiii^.,  115)  and  of  Dr.  Turner  (op.  cit.,  p.  405),  that 
the  Nativity  took  place  at  the  time  of  the  first  census  of  Pales- 
tine, held  under  Saturninus,  in  8-6  B.C.  St.  Luke,  then,  is  right 
as  to  the  fact,  but  wrong  as  to  the  name  of  the  Governor  —  quite 
a  possible  mistake. 

(vi.)  But  we  have  not  quite  done  with  Quirinius.  There  is 
considerable  evidence  that  he  was  twice  governor  of  Syria,  and 
in  that  capacity  carried  on  a  campaign  against  the  Homona- 
denses  some  time  before  the  mission  of  Gaius  Caesar  to  the  East. 
This  earlier  Governorship  is  placed  by  Schiirer  and  Mommsen 
in  3-2  B.C.,  but  Sir  WiUiam  Ramsay  has  produced  considerable 
evidence,  based  on  more  recent  discoveries,  to  show  that  the 
campaign  against  the  Homonadenses  —  and,  therefore,  the  first 
governorship  of  Quirinius  —  should  be  placed  earlier.  He  may, 
then,  have  been  Governor  between  6  and  8  B.C.,  at  the  time  of 
a  census,  or  more  probably  held  a  special  command,  which 
would  account  for  St.  Luke  putting  the  census  under  Quirinius 
and  Tertullian  remembering  the  name  of  Saturninus.  We  had 
better,  on  this  matter,  suspend  our  judgment,  and  await  further 
discovery. 

The  conclusion  of  this  argument  is  that  the  Nativity  was 
probably  about  8  B.C.,  or  perhaps,  recognizing  the  possibility 
of  delay  in  carrying  out  the  census,  we  might  place  it,  with  Dr. 
Turner,  in  7  b.c.    Lewin's  date  of  6  B.C.  is  probably  too  late. 

2.  The  Beginning  of  the  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist. 
—  St.  Luke  gives  a  series  of  synchronisms  for  this  event.  "Now 
in  the  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar,  Pontius 
Pilate  being  governor  of  Judaea,  and  Herod  being  tetrarch  of 
Galilee,  and  his  brother  Philip  tetrarch  of  the  region  of  Ituraea 
and  Trachonitis,  and  Lysanias  tetrarch  of  Abilene,  in  the  high 
priesthood  of  Annas  and  Caiaphas,  the  word  of  God  came  unto 
John  the  son  of  Zacharias  in  the  wilderness"  (Lk.  iii.  i). 


THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  MINISTRY  317 

The  fifteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius  Caesar  is  ahnost 
the  only  fixed  and  definite  date  given  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
was  counted  from  August  19,  a.d.  28,  to  August  19,  a.d.  29. 
Difliculties  have  been  raised,  however. 

(i.)  It  has  been  suggested  (as  by  Dr.  Turner  in  Hastings' 
Bible  Dictionary,  i.  405)  that  the  years  of  his  reign  were  com- 
puted from  the  time  when  he  was  associated  with  Augustus 
(a.d.  II  or  12),  and  not  from  the  latter 's  death.  But  while  there 
is  no  instance  of  computation  from  this  date,  that  from  the 
actual  succession  is  well  known  and  occurs  on  coins  of  the  eastern 
provinces,  and,  in  particular,  on  coins  of  Palestine  (see  Lewin, 
Fasti  Sacri,  p.  liii.;  Hill,  Coins  of  Palestine  in  the  British  Museum, 
pp.  251-260).  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Western  system 
of  dating  by  the  years  of  Tribunician  power  must  have  been  quite 
meaningless  in  the  East,  and  the  substitution  of  the  regnal  year 
was  natural. 

(ii.)  It  has  been  affirmed  that  the  date  refers  not  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Baptist's  ministry,  but  to  the  year  in  which  he  bap- 
tized our  Lord.  This,  however,  is  quite  contrary  to  St.  Luke's 
statement,  which  is  that  in  this  year  the  word  of  the  Lord  came 
to  John. 

(iii.)  It  has  further  been  asked,  On  what  evidence  did  St. 
Luke  arrive  at  this  very  exact  date?  And  is  he  accurate?  The 
first  question  we  cannot  answer,  but  it  is  probable  that  he  had 
some  definite  information.  As  to  the  second,  it  is  possible  that 
St.  Luke  was  mistaken;  but  when  a  careful  historian  who  wrote 
not  fifty  years  afterwards  and  clearly  shows  abundant  evidence 
of  enquiry  gives  us  a  fixed  date,  we  should  accept  it  unless  proof 
of  its  incorrectness  can  be  produced. 

3.  The  Length  of  Our  Lord's  Ministry.  —  I  cannot  think 
that  this  was  less  than  three  years.  The  attempt  to  compress 
it  within  a  year  seems  to  me  contrary  to  the  evidence  and  to 
probability. 

(i.)  The  Galilaean  ministry  requires,  I  think,  not  less  than  two 
years.  There  were  probably  at  least  two  full  circuits  of  preaching 
in  Galilee  which  would,  it  may  be  held,  take  place  during  the 
summer  months  (see  p.  206). 

(ii.)  The  feeding  of  the  multitude  took  place,  according  to  St. 
John,  about  the  time  of  the  Passover  (Jn.  vi.  4).  This  statement 
is  corroborated  by  St.  Mark,  who  tells  us  that  they  sat  down  on 
the  green  grass  (Mk.  vi.  39).  This  would  only  be  possible  in  the 
early  spring. 

(iii.)  This  was  followed  by  a  long  tour  through  the  districts  of 
Tyre,  Sidon,  and  the  Decapolis,  which  probably  lasted  most  of 
the  summer.  It  ends  with  the  confession  at  Caesarea  Philippi 
and  the  Transfiguration.  This  must  have  taken  place  before  the 
winter,  when  the  slopes  of  Hermon  would  be  covered  with  snow. 


3i8       THE  CHRONOLOGY  OF  THE  GOSPELS 

(iv.)  The  final  journey  to  Jerusalem  was  probably  during  the 
autumn  of  this  year. 

4.  The  Death  of  John  the  Baptist. — Josephus  {Antt., 
xviii.,  §  116)  tells  us  that  the  Jews  thought  that  the  defeat  of 
Herod  Antipas  by  Aretas  was  a  judgment  upon  him  for  the  execu- 
tion of  John  the  Baptist.  The  defeat  was  probably,  therefore, 
not  very  long  after  the  death  of  John. 

This  defeat  was  probably  not  later  than  the  year  a.d.  33. 
We  are  told  that  it  was  caused  by  the  bad  conduct  of  a  con- 
tingent from  the  Tetrarchy  of  Philip  (ibid.,  §  114).  It  occurred, 
therefore,  probably  before  the  death  of  Philip,  which  took  place 
during  the  twentieth  year  of  Tiberius  (between  August  19,  33, 
and  August  19,  34).  It  may  have  been  as  early  as  a.d.  32,  and 
the  death  of  John  may  have  taken  place  during  the  winter  31-32, 
so  that  news  of  it  would  come  to  Jesus  shortly  before  the  feeding 
of  the  multitude. 

5.  The  Date  of  the  Crucifixion.  —  The  Crucifixion  took 
place : 

(i.)  During  the  Governorship  of  Pontius  Pilate  —  i.e.,  between 
A.D.  27  and  37. 

(ii.)  When  Caiaphas  was  high  priest  —  that  is,  before  a.d.  36. 

(iii.)  In  a  year  when  the  Passover  fell  either  on  a  Thursday 
or  Friday.  We  cannot  be  more  precise.  The  computation  of 
the  date  of  the  Passover  is  a  problem  for  the  experts,  and  they 
seem  agreed  that  the  three  possible  years  are  a.d.  29,  30,  and  33. 
If  the  conclusions  reached  above  are  correct,  29  and  30  are  too 
early,  and  33  remains  —  a  year  which  harmonizes  sufiiciently 
with  the  other  data. 

6.  The  approximate  dates,  then,  for  the  ministry  of  Jesus  are: 


a.d. 

28-29 

. .     Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist. 

?? 

29-30 

. .     The  Baptism  of  Jesus. 

>} 

30 

.  .     Imprisonment  of  John  the  Baptist, 
The  Galilaean  Ministry. 

jy 

31 

. .     The  Galilaean  Ministry. 

>) 

3^-32 

. .     Death  of  John  the  Baptist. 

)} 

32         Spring 

Feeding  the  Multitude. 
Retreat  to  Tyre  and  Sidon. 
Journey  to  Jerusalem. 

)) 

33 

. .     Passover. 

The  Crucifixion. 

NOTES   ON  THE   CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE    (p.  320) 

'  The  years  of  Herod  seem  to  have  been  counted  from  i  January  or  i 
Nisan,  37  B.C. 

2  The  reign  of  Augustus  seems  always  to  have  been  calculated  in  Syria  from 
31  B.C.,  the  Battle  of  Actium,  "the  year  of  vie  tor  j'-,"  and  its  years  began  on 
September  2. 

^  "Nihil  ad  veterem  et  patriciam  Sulpiciorum  familiam  Quirinius  pertinuit, 
ortus  apud  municipium  Lanuvium:  sed  impiger  militae,  et  acribus  ministeriis, 
consulatum  sub  D.  Augusto,  mox  expugnatis  per,  Ciliciam  Homonadensium 
castellis,  insignia  triumplii  adeptus,  datusque  rector  C.  Caesari,  Armeniam 
obtinenti." —  Tac.  Ann.  iii.  48. 

^  Lustrum  solus  feci  Censorino  et  Asinio  coss.  —  Monumentmn  Ancyranuin. 

^  This  was  the  first  year  of  Archelaus,  of  Herod  Antipas,  and  of  Philip. 
Presumably  the  year  began  with  their  succession  about  April  i,  and  not 
from  their  recognition  by  Augustus. 

^  The  years  of  Tiberius  in  Syria,  and  probably  the  East  generally,  appear 
to  have  been  calculated  from  his  actual  succession,  as  we  know  from  syn- 
chronisms on  coins  of  Herod  Antipas  and  elsewhere. 


319 


CHRONOLOGICAL 


B£. 

A.U.C. 

Years  oj 
Herod. 

Years  of 
Augustus. 

Roman  History. 

Province  of  Syria. 

12 

742 

26> 

19' 

P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius,  Consul.' 

— 

II 

743 

27 

20 

— 

— 

,10 

744 

28 

21 

— 

M.  Titius  (?) 

9 

745 

29 

22 

Census  year  of  Empire  (?) 

P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius  (?) 
Campaign  against  Homona- 
denses ' 

8 

746 

30 

23 

Census  at  Rome  under  Augustus 
completed.* 

C.  Sentius  Saturninus  (9-6) 

7 

747 

31 

24 

— 

— 

6 

748 

32 

25 

— 

P.  Quintilius  Varus  (6-4) 

S 

749 

3i 

26 

— 

— 

4 

750 

34 

Year  oJ 

Herod 

27 

Anlipas 
16 

3 

751 

2 

28 

— 

— 

2 

752 

3 

29 

Mission  of  Gaius  to  the  East. 

— 

I 

/l.Z>. 

753 

4 

30 

— 

Gaius  Caesar  (to  a.d.  4). 

I 

754 

S 

31 



— 

2 

755 

6 

32 

Death  of  Lucius  Caesar. 

— 

3 

756 

7 

33 

— 

— 

4 

757 

8 

34 

Death  of  Gaius  Caesar. 

L.  Volusius  Saturninus  (4-5). 

S 

758 

9 

35 

— 

— 

6 

759 

10 

36 

Census  year  of  Empire  (?) 

P.  Sulpicius  Quirinius  for  the 
second  time. 

7 

760 

II 

37 



— 

8 

761 

12 

38 

— 

— 

9 

762 

13 

39 

Defeat  of  Varus  in  Germany, 

— 

lO 

763 

14 

40 

— 

■ — 

II 

764 

IS 

41 

— 

— 

12 

765 

16 

42 

— 

Q.  Caecilius  Creticus  Silanus 

13 

766 

17 

43 

— 

-           C(i2-i7). 

14 

767 

18 

44 
Year  of 
Tiberius 

Death  of  Augustus  (Aug.  19). 
Accession  of  Tiberius. 

15 

768 

19 

I  ^ 
2 



— 

i6 

769 

20 

3 

— 

— 

17 

770 

21 

4 

— 

Cn.  Calpurnius  Piso  (17-19) 

i8 

771 

22 

5 

— 

- — - 

19 

772 

23 

6 

Death  of  Germanicus. 

Cn.  Sentius  Saturninus  (19- 

20 

773 

24 

7 

— 

-                   C21). 

21 

774 

25 

8 

— 

— 

22 

775 

26 

9 

— 

— 

23 

776 

27 

10 

Death  of  Drusus. 

— 

24 

777 

28 

II 

— 

— 

25 

778 

29 

12 

— 

— 

26 

779 

30 

13 

— 

— 

27 

780 

31 

14 

— 

— 

28 

781 

32 

15 

— 

— 

29 

782 

33 

16 

Death  of  Livia. 

— 

30 

783 

34 

17 

— 

J  — 

31 

784 

35 

18 

Death  of  Sejanus. 

— 

32 

78s 

36 

19 

— 

L.  Aelius  Lamia  (until  32). 
L.  Pomponius  Flaccus   (32- 
[35). 

33 

786 

37 

20 

—         t 

— 

34 

787 

38 

21 

— 

— 

35 

788 

39 

22 

— 

L.  Vitellius  (35-39)- 

36 

789 

40 

23 

— . 

Treaty   between  Rome   and 

37 

790 

41 

24 

Death  of  Tiberius. 
(March  16). 

—           [Parthia. 

See  Notes  i  to  6,  p.  321 


TABLE 


Palestine. 


Herod  visits  Rome. 
Dedication  of  Caesarea. 
Herod's  Third  Visit  to  Romc(?) 


Murder    of     Alexander     and 


Aristobulus. 


Murder  of  Antipater. 
Death  of  Herod  (April  i). 
Accession  of  Archelaus,  Anti 
pas  and  PbiUp. 


High  Priests. 


Simon, 


son     of     Boethos 

—    [(2    -5  B.C.) 


Banishment  of  Archelaus 
Census  in  Judaea 
Coponius  Procurator. 


M.  Ambibulus. 

Death    of    Salome,    sister    of 

—  [Herod. 

Annius  Rufus. 


Valerius  Gratus. 


—     lus     (s-4) 
Matthias,    son   of  Theophi 
Joseph,  son  of  Ellem. 
Josar,  son  of  Boethos. 


Eleasar,  son  of  Boethos. 


Jesus,  son  of  See  (?) 


Joasar,      son     of     Boethos 
(the  second  time). 

Annas,  son  of  Sethi  (6-15) 


Christian  History. 


B.C. 


Nativity  of  Jesus  Christ 


Pontius  Pilate. 

Herod  Antipas  builds  Tiberias, 


Herod  meets  Herodias. 
His  wife  flees  to  her  father. 


War  between  Herod  and 
Aretas. 

Death  of  Philip  the  Tetrarch, 


Banishment  of  Pontius  Pilate. 
Expedition         of         Vitellius 

against  Aretas    stopped   by 

death  of  Tiberius. 


Ismael,  son  of  Phiabi. 
Eleazar,  son  of  Annas. 
Simon,  son  of  Kamithos. 
Joseph  Caiaphas  (18-36). 


Vitellius  deposes  Caiaphas. 


John  the  Baptist. 

Baptism  of  Jesus. 
.\rrest  of  John. 
The  Galilaean  Ministry. 
The  Galilaean  Ministry. 
Death  of  John. 
Feeding  the  Multitude. 
Journey  to  Tyre  and  Sidon 
Last  Journey  to  Jerusalem 
The  Crucifixion  (April  3). 


NOTES  ON  THE  MAP  OF  PALESTINE 

The  political  divisions  of  Palestine  at  the  time  of  our  Lord, 
starting  from  the  north,  were  as  follows: 

1.  The  Country  of  the  Ituraeans.  — The  Ituraeans  were  a 
warlike  mountain  tribe,  the  nucleus  of  whose  territory  was  the 
mountains  of  the  Lebanon  and  the  plain  of  Marsyas.  The  limits 
varied  considerably.  At  one  time  it  had  included  a  considerable 
part  of  Galilee,  and  had  stretched  to  the  south  east  to  Trachonitis. 

At  this  time  it  was  divided  into  four  portions: 

(i)  The  northern  part  of  the  plain  of  Marsyas  towards  Laodi- 

cea.     This  was  governed,  after  a.d.  38,  by  a  certain  Soemus. 

What  was  its  position  at  this  time  we  do  not  know. 

(2)  The  southern  part  of  this  plain  with  its  capital,  Chalcis. 
This  was  granted  in  a.d.  41  to  Herod,  grandson  of  Herod  the 
Great,  and  brother  of  Agrippa  L 

(3)  The  district  of  Abilene,  with  its  capital  Abila,  to  the  east 
towards  Damascus  on  the  upper  waters  of  the  Barada  or 
Chrysorrhoas,  the  river  of  Damascus.  At  this  time  it  was 
ruled  by  a  Tetrarch  of  the  name  of  Lysanias,  as  is  correctly 
stated  by  St.  Luke  (iii.  i).  In  a.d.  41  it  was  granted  by  Claudius 
to  Agrippa  I. 

(4)  The  southern  portion,  called  the  House  of  Zenodorus, 
formed  part  of  the  dominions  of  Philip  (see  below). 

2.  The  Territory  of  the  Phoenician  and  Greek  Cities  on 
the  Coast:  Sidon,  Tyre,  and  Ptolemais.  —  How  large  the 
territory  of  these  cities  was  we  have  no  correct  knowledge,  but 
Josephus  tells  us  that  Mount  Carmel  belonged  to  Tyre,  and  if  his 
statement  that  the  northern  boundary  of  Galilee  was  the  terri- 
tory of  Tyre  be  correct,  it  must  have  stretched  a  considerable 
distance  inland. 

3.  The  Tetrarchy  of  Philip.  —  This  was  really  that  portion 
of  the  dominions  of  Herod  the  Great  which  had  formerly  belonged 
to  Zenodorus,  and  was  called  the  House  of  Zenodorus  (see  Josephus, 
AntL,  XV.  342-364;  xvii.  189,  319;  xviii.  106;  BJ.  398,  399). 
It  included  the  southern  part  of  the  territory  of  the  Ituraeans, 
with  the  district  called  Paneas;  Batanea,  the  ancient  Bashan  or, 
rather,  a  portion  of  it,  the  country  round  Ashtaroth  and  Edrei; 
Trachonitis,  the  rugged  lava  country  to  the  north  towards 
Damascus;  Auranitis,  the  modern  Hauran,  the  rich  corn-growing 
country  to  the  south;  and  Gaulanitis,  the  country  on  the  eastern 

322 


THE  JOURNEYS  OF  OUR  LORD  323 

bank  of  Jordan,  south  of  Paneas.  Within  this  area  there  were, 
however,  certain  districts  belonging  to  the  Greek  cities  of  the 
DecapoHs,  which  were  not  under  PhiUp's  jurisdiction.  Its  Kmits 
to  the  south  are  fixed  by  the  fact  that  the  towns  of  Bosra  and 
Salcha  belonged  to  the  Nabataeans. 

4.  The  Tetrarchy  of  Antipas.  —  This  consisted  of  the  terri- 
tories of  Galilee  and  Peraea.  Galilee  was,  according  to  Josephus 
(B.  J.,  iii.  35-38),  bounded  on  the  west  by  Ptolemais  and  Carmel; 
on  the  south  by  Samaria  and  Scythopolis;  on  the  east  by  the 
territories  of  Hippos  and  Gadara,  and  by  Gaulanitis;  on  the 
north  by  Tyre  and  the  country  of  the  Tyrians.  It  extended  to 
the  southern  edge  of  the  plain  of  Esdraelon. 

Peraea,  in  its  full  size,  was  all  the  country  beyond  Jordan 
between  the  Yarmuk  and  the  Arnon,  but  a  considerable  part  of 
this  belonged  to  the  cities  of  the  Decapolis.  Josephus  describes  it 
{B.  J.,  iii.  46,  47)  as  bounded  on  the  north  by  Pella,  and  on  the 
east  by  the  territories  of  Gerasa  and  Philadelphia  and  the 
Arabians.    Its  most  southern  town  was  Machaerus. 

5.  The  Decapolis.  —  This  was  a  league  of  Greek  cities,  each 
with  its  separate  territory  forming  enclaves  in  the  different 
districts;  but  between  Galilee  and  Peraea  they  were  contiguous 
and  covered  a  considerable  stretch  of  country.  They  were 
Scythopolis  or  Bethshan  on  the  western  bank  of  Jordan;  Hippos, 
Gadara,  and  Pella  on  the  eastern  bank.  Further  inland  were 
Abila,  Dium,  Gerasa,  and  Philadelphia  on  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Peraea.  Raphana  and  Kanatha  were  in  the  territory  of  Philip, 
and  Damascus  to  the  north. 

6.  The  Roman  Province,  under  the  direct  rule  of  the  Pro- 
curators, consisting  of  Samaria,  Judaea,  and  Idumaea.  The 
Greek  town  of  Gaza  was,  however,  a  free  city;  and  the  revenues 
of  Jamnia,  Azotus,  and  Phasaelis  were  the  property  of  Salome, 
the  sister  of  Herod,  and  then,  after  her  death,  of  Livia.  They 
were,  however,  for  political  purposes  under  the  Procurators. 

7.  The  Kingdom  of  the  Nabataeans.  —  Its  capital  was 
Petra;  it  appears  to  have  extended  all  along  the  eastern  border 
of  Palestine,  and  at  times,  Damascus,  in  order  probably  to  pro- 
tect itself  from  attacks  of  Ituraeans,  was  under  its  protection  or 
suzerainty. 

The    Journeys    of    Our    Lord 

We  have  not  sufficient  data  to  .trace  these  with  any  accuracy. 
Besides  short  journeys  to  different  places  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
there  were  probably  — 

(i.)  Two  longer  circuits  through  Galilee.  During  these  He 
visited  besides  Nazareth,  Nain  and  a  place  called  Cana. 


324         NOTES  ON  THE  MAP  OF  PALESTINE 

(ii.)  Journeys  across  the  lake  to  Gerasa,  or  Gergesa,  and  to 
Bethsaida. 

(iii.)  A  long  journey  through  the  territories  of  Tyre,  Sidon,  and 
part  of  the  Decapolis.  This  must  have  implied  a  considerable 
circuit  through  the  mountainous  region  to  the  north. 

(iv.)  Journeys  to  Jerusalem  —  how  many  we  cannot  say.  Both 
St.  John  and  St.  Luke  are  evidence  that  He  passed  through 
Samaria,  and  almost  certainly  on  two  different  journeys.  He 
also,  probably  on  one  occasion  at  least,  travelled  by  the  road 
through  Peraea.  Whether  there  was  a  full  Peraean  ministry  may 
be  doubted. 

In  the  accompanying  map  the  divisions  of  territory  have  been 
marked  very  roughly,  so  as  to  avoid  the  impression  that  we 
have  accurate  knowledge.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  fix  the 
limits  of  the  different  city  states,  or  to  represent  with  any 
correctness  the  way  in  which  they  existed  as  enclaves  in  the 
surrounding  territory.  The  journeys  of  our  Lord  are  also 
largely  conjectural,  but  it  is  possible  to  bring  out  the  significance 
of  the  long  journey  through  the  territories  of  Tyre  and  Sidon 
and  the  Decapolis. 

The  Roads 

At  this  period  the  roads  of  Palestine  would  be  of  two  classes. 
There  would  be  connecting  every  town  and  village  the  old 
native  tracks,  varying  in  character  according  to  the  nature  of 
the  soil,  similar  to  the  roads  which  exist  at  the  present  day 
where  Western  methods  have  not  been  introduced,  but  probably 
better  cared  for  than  under  Turkish  rule.  They  would  be 
suitable  for  walking  or  riding,  but  not  well  fitted  for  wheeled 
traffic. 

There  would  be,  secondly,  the  great  international  highways. 
They  would  probably,  by  this  time,  have  become  under  Roman 
influence  well-built  paved  roads.  It  would  be  along  such  a 
road  that  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  was  driving  in  his  chariot 
(Acts  viii.  28). 

The  main  roads  would  be: 

1.  The  great  maritime  road  from  Egypt.  This  seems  to  have 
followed  the  coast,  a  few  miles  inland,  until  it  reached  Mt. 
Carmel,  where  it  turned  further  into  the  country  and,  passing  by 
Megiddo,  reached  the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  Here  it  divided  into 
three.  One  branch  turned  again  to  the  coast  and  went  on  to 
the  Phoenician  cities.  A  second,  to  the  right,  passed  Scythopolis, 
or  Bethshan  and  so  crossed  the  Jordan.  Between  the  two  a 
third  branch  went  over  the  hills  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  then 
by  Caesarea  Philippi  to  Damascus. 

2.  Roads  from  Jerusalem: 

(a)  To  Lydda  and  Joppa. 

(b)  To  Jericho  and  across  Jordan. 


THE  ROADS  325 

(f)  North  to  Shechem  (Neapolis),  Samaria  (Sebaste),  and  so 
to  the  plain  of  Esdraelon  and  GaUlee. 

3.  A  road  from  Ptolemais  inland  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and 
from  there  onwards  to  Damascus  on  one  side  and  the  cities  of 
the  Decapolis  on  the  other. 

4.  There  seem  to  have  been  roads  running  north  on  both  sides 
of  the  Jordan  valley,  which  were  probably  continued  on  both 
sides  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 

5.  From  Damascus  south  two  great  roads  ran,  one  to 
Caesarea  Philippi  described  above,  the  other  —  the  Pilgrims' 
Road  —  running  through  the  Hauran  as  far  as  Philadelphia  (Rab- 
bath-Ammon),  and  from  there  to  the  Jordan  by  Jericho. 

The  best  accounts  of  the  roads  of  Palestine  are  those  by  Sir 
George  Adam  Smith  in  his  Historical  Geography  of  Palestine,  and 
in  an  article  on  "Trade  and  Commerce"  in  Encyclopaedia 
Biblica,  vol.  iv. 


INDEX 


Abbahtj,  Rabbi,  144 

Abbot,  Rev.  E.  A.,  D.D.,  146 

—  Rev.  T.  K.,  109 
Abila,  322 

—  in  Decapolis,  323 
Abilene,  75,  322 

Abraham,  descent  from,  141,  142 
Abrahams,    I.,    M.A.,    82,    88,    137, 

138,  144,  148 
Abtalion,  Rabbi,  80 
Achiabus,  50 
Actium,  46 

Adolphus,  John  Leycester, 
Agape.  See  Love 
Agrippa  I.,  son  of  Aristobulus,  64 

—  released  by  Caligula,  71 

—  receives  tetrarchy  of  Philip,  71 

—  receives  title  of  King,  72 

• —  accuses  Herod  Antipas  of  treason, 

—  receives   territory   of  Herod  Anti- 
pas,  72 

Akrabetta,  56 

Alexander,  brother  of  Archelaus,  53 
Alexander  the  Great,  289 
Alexander  Jannaeus,  304 
Almsgiving,  226^. 
Alpheus,  95,  203,  204 
Ambibulus,  jVIarcus,  Procurator,  61 
Amos,  the  Prophet,  135 
Ancient  of  Days,  243,  247,  297 
Andrew,  the  Apostle,  174,  202 
Angels,  124 

- — in  our  Lord's  words,  124 
Anna,  the  prophetess,  91,  248 
Annas,  son  of  Sethi,  high  priest,  40, 
62 

—  the  sons  of,  62,  134 

Anointed,   the,    131,    147,    299.     See 

also  Messiah 
Antipas.     See  Herod  Antipas 
Antipatris,  57 

Antiquities  of  the  Jews,  128 
Antonia,  Castle  of,  55,  56 
Apocalj'ptic  movement,  the,  112 

—  interpretation,  value  of,  164 

of  Baptist's  message,  163 

Apocalyptic     interpretation,      King- 

•  dom  of  Heaven,  243 


Apostles,  the,  200/. 

—  calling  of,  22,  174 

—  mission  of,  266  j[. 

Apostohc   Church,   evidence  of   the, 

42 
Aqiba,  Rabbi,  teaching  on  Divorce, 

82 
Archelais,  53,  61 

Archelaus,  49,  50,  52,  53,  61,  315 
Aretas    IV.,     King    of     the    Naba- 

taeans,  69,  75,  158 

—  called  Lover  of  his  Country,  75 

—  coins  of,  95 
Armenia,  76 
Arnon,  68,  323 

Artabanus    III.,    King    of    Parthia, 

71,  76 
Arthur,  King,  167 
Ascalon,  52,  55 
Asceticism,  221 
Ashdod,  52 
Ashtaroth,  322 

Assumption  of  Moses,  the,  50,  133, 
Athronges,  a  robber,  50,  51 
Augustan  Age,  the,  45 
Augustine  of  Hippo,  150 
Augustus,  Roman  Emperor,  46,  48, 

50,  52,  53,  61,  281,  314 

—  his   religious   policy   in   Palestine, 

Auranitis,  65,  322 
Aurelius,  Marcus,  222 
Authority  of  Jesus,  178,  179 
Autocratoris,  69 
Azotus,  323 

Baal-Gad,  281 
Baal-Shalishah,  274 
Bannus,  a  hermit,  135,  137 
Baptism,  137,  199 

—  the  word,  139 

—  a  sign  of  the  Messianic  Age,  138 

—  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  143 

—  necessary  even  for  Israel,  141 

—  of  Jesus,  150,  151,  152 

—  a  rite  of  the  day,  162,  163 

—  of  fire,  143,  169 

—  of  proselytes,  137,  138 
Braada,  322 


327 


328 


INDEX 


Bartholomew,  the  Apostle,  203 
Bartimaeus,  308 
Batanea,  65,  322 
Bath-Qol,  the,  28,  148 
Beatitudes,  the,  179,  211/. 

—  based  on  the  Old  Testament,  212 
Beelzebub,  125,  182,  254. 

—  casting    out    devils    through,    1 7, 
22,  198 

Berachoth,  treatise  of  the  Mishna,  87 

Bethabara,  141 

Bethany  (or  Bethabara),  141 

Betharamptha,  50,  69 

Beth-ha-Midrash,  78 

Beth-ha-Sepher,  78 

Bethlatepha,  56 

Bethsaida    Julias,    9,    67,    170,    171, 

176,  270,  281,  323 
Beth-shan,  73,  98 
Beza,  treatise  of  the  Mishna,  87 
Blessings  of  the  Synagogue  Service, 

the,  92 
Boanerges,  202 
Body,  the,  122 
Bosra,  323 

Bousset,  Dr.  William,  302 
Bread  of  Life,  discourse  on  the,  39, 

276 
Broolce,  A.  E.,  148 
Brundisium,  46 

Burkitt,  Dr.  F.  Crawford,  2,  8,  25 
Burney,  Rev.  C.  F.,  D.Litt.,  38,  212 

Caesar,  Caius  Julius,  45,  46 

Caesarea,  52,  55,  57 

Caesarea  Philippi,  9,  63,  67,  281/., 

317,  324 
Caiaphas,  Joseph,  high  priest,  62 
Caius  Caesar  Caligula,  56 
Cana,  323 

Canaanaeans.     See  Zealots,  59 
Capernaum,  11,  171,  176 
Capharnaum,  173 
Capua,  45 

Carmel,  Mount,  97,  112,  323,  324 
Census,  the,  57/,  316 
Cerinthus,  150 
Chalcis,  75,  322 
Charlemagne,  167 
Charles,  Dr.  R.  H.,  3 
Chasidim,  the,  213 
Cheyne,  Dr.  T.  K.,  157 
Chihasts,  the,  161 
Chorazin,  171,  176 
Christ.      See    Messiah;     also    Jesus 

Christ 
Christianity     and     material     needs, 

191 

—  and  other-worldliness,  263 

—  and  social  reform,  264 


Chronological  tables,  318,  320 
Chrysorrhoas,  322 
Church,  the  Christian,  44 

—  beginnings  of  the,  198 
Chuza,  Herod's  steward,  205 
Cicero,  M.  Tullius,  45 
Cilicia,  54 

Clopas,  brother  of  Joseph,  95 
Commagene,  75 
Conway,  Professor  R.  S.,  46 
Coponius,  Roman  Procurator,  60 
Corinthians,  Epistles  to  the,  42 
Cosmology  of  the  Jews,  the,  114/. 
Crassus,  M.  Licenus,  76 
Criticism,  higher,  4 

—  of     New    Testament;      difference 
from  Old  Testament,  31 

—  characteristics  of,  157 
Cross,  the,  287 

—  the  Gospel  of  the,  285 
Crucifixion,  date  of  the,  40,  31S 
Cyrenius.     See  Quirinius. 
Cyrus,  King  of  Persia,  289 

Dalman,  Professor  Gustav,  no,  247 
Dalmanutha,  278 
Damascus,  65,  73,  323,  324,  325 
David,  kingdom  of,  241 

—  son  of,  307 

Day  of  the  Lord,  133,  134,  136 

Dead  Sea,  135,  170 

Decapolis,  65,  73,  98,  140,  281, 

323,  325 
Devil.    See  also  Satan,  125 
Devils.    See  Spirits,  Evil 

—  casting  out,  181 
Diocaesarea,  69 
Disciples,  199 

—  their  instructions,  283 

—  of  John  the  Baptist,  201 
Discourses,  The,  6,  15/ 

—  contents  of,  16 

—  identical  with  the  Logia,  16 

—  whether  used  by  St.  Mark,  18 

—  date  of,  19 

—  how  used  by  St.  Luke,  23 
Dispersion,  the,  254 

Dium,  73,  323 

Divorce,  teaching  of  our  Lord  on,  17 

—  Jewish  teaching  on,  83 
Docetae,  149 

Domitian,  the  Emperor,  96 
Doublets,  17 

Dove,  symbolism  of  the,  148 
Drews,  Professor    159 

Earth,  description  of  the,  115 
East,  kings  of  the,  77 
Ebionites,  Gospel  of  the,  140 
Ecce  Homo,  author  of,  167,  169 


INDEX 


325 


Ecclesia.    See  also  Church,  35 

Eden,  118 

Edersheim,  Dr.  Alfred,  77,  106,  279, 

291 
Edrei,  322 
Education  of  Jesus,  94^. 

—  Jewish,  78,  106 
Egypt,  324 
Egyptians,  the,  272 

El  Azhar,  Mosque  of,  160 

Elders,  council  of,  99 

Eleazar,  son  of  Annas,  high  priest, 

62 
Eleazar,      son     of     Boethus,      high 

priest,  53 
Eleazar  ben  Jacob,  Rabbi,  138 
Eleazar,  son  of  Joazar,  high  priest,  61 
Eleazer,  Rabbi,  279 
Elect,  mansions  of  the,  116 
Elect  One,  the,  246,  247,  299 
Elijah  or  Elias,  136,  166,  282,  288 
Elisabeth,     mother     of     John     the 

Baptist,  91,  135 
Emmaus,  in  Judaea,  56 

—  hot  springs  of,  69 
Emperor,  sacrifices  for,  56 
Enemies,  can  we  love  our,  223 
Engaddi,  56 

Enoch,  Book  of,  115,   124,   163,  202, 

299 
Epictetus,  222 
Epiphanian  theory,  96 
Epiphanies,  162 

Esdraelon,  plain  of,  68,  97,  323 
Eschatological  Movement,  the,  112 

See  also  Apocalj^tic 

Essenes,    the,    no,    123,    135,    137, 

162,  199 
Eternal  life,  299 
Ethics,     Christian,     compared    with 

Roman,  222 

-with  Greek,  221 

-not  ascetic,  221 

Ethnarch,  52 
Eucharist,  the,  277 
Euphrates,  the,  76 
Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  10,  15 
Ezekias,  50,  51 

Faith  a  condition  of  miracles,  189 

Fasting,  195,  226/. 

Father,  the,  302 

Feeding   of   the   Multitude,    13,    39, 

270/.,  317 
Flesh,  the,  122 
Forgiveness  of   sins,    140,    180,    181, 

194 

Gabriel,  the  archangel,  123,  136 
Gadara,  52,  73,  171,  323 


Gadaritis,  73 

Gains  Caesar,  54,  76,  316 

Galilaean  Ministry,  the,  170/ 

—  length  of,  206 

Galilaeans,  the,  their  blood  mingled 
with  their  sacrifices,  63 

—  See  Zealots 

Galilee,  52,  65,  68/.,  97/.,  248 

—  its  boundaries,  323 

—  disturbances  in,  50 

—  period  of  peace,  72 

—  surrounded  by  foreign  nations,  74 

—  its  patriotism,  113 

—  Rabbinic  contempt  of,  113 

—  religion  of,  no,  113 

—  its  provincialism,  114 
Galilee,  Lake  of,  170/.,  ^21; 
Gamala,  171 

Gamaliel  I.,  Rabbi,  85 

—  II.,  Rabbi,  85 

—  III.,  Rabbi,  85 
Gaulonitis,  65,  322,  323 
Gaza,  52,  55,  323 
Gehenna,  108,  299 
Gemara,  the,  82 

Gennesaret,   Lake   of.      See   Galilee, 
Lake  of 

—  171,  172,  272,  277,  278 
Gerasa,  73,  323 

—  or  Gergesa,  205,  323 
Gergesa,  205,  323 
Gerizim,  Mount,  64 
Germanicus,  76 

Glaphyra,    daughter    of    Archelaus, 

King  of  Cappadocia,  53 
God,  will  of,  256 

—  sovereignty  of,  241 ,  247 

—  as  Father  of  Mankind,  235 
Golden  Rule,  the,  233 
Gophna,  56 

Gospel  of  the  Ehionites,  149 
Gospel  of  the  Hebrews,  151 
Gospel  of  the  Nazarenes,  151 
Gospel  of  the  Cross,  285 
Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  7,  25/. 
its  date,  19,  25 

—  —  not  written  in  Aramaic,  16 

25 

the  purpose  of,  25 

the  use  of  St.  Mark,  26 

—  —  spoils  the  stories  in  St.  Mark, 
12 

the  use  of  the  Old  Testament, 

26 

method  of  composition,  27 

its  trustworthiness,  27 

■ —  —  the  use  of  The  Discourses,  29 
Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  8/. 

priority  of,  6/ 

a  literary  unit,  8 


330 


INDEX 


Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  sources  of,  lo 

vividness  of  detail,  ii 

succession  of  events  in,  ii 

supposed     inconsistency     with 

Petrine  origin,  12 

the  apocalyptic  passage,  14 

Did  it  use  The  Discourses'^  18 

its  date,  19 

Gospel  of  St.  Luke,  17,  19  J". 

its  authorship,  19 

theory  of  Dr.  Streeter,  20 

relation  to  Josephus,  20,  316 

—  ^use  of  St.  Mark,  22,  25 

character  of  the  Gospel,  22 

the  birth  narratives,  91 

its  sources,  22 

the  special  source,  23,  24 

Gospel  of  St.  John,  37/.,  104 

use   of    the    S3Tioptic    Gospels, 

20,  29 

signs  of  later  teaching,  37 

its  Jewish  character,  38 

the  later  element  in,  41 

signs  of  Aramaic  origin,  38 

—  —  use  of,  41 
Gospels,  the,  4/. 

—  imagery  of  the,  104 
• —  the  Synoptic,  5/. 

historical  value  of,  30/. 

—  See  also  Synoptic 
Gracchi,  the,  45 

Greek  cities,  the,  50,  52,  55,  73,  322 
Greek  ethical  system,  220 
Gutschmid,  75 

Haggada,  87 

Hallacha,  87 

Harlots,  180 

Harnack,  Professor  von,  6,  17,  19 

Hasmonaeans,  47,  299 

Hauran,  73,  170 

Hawkins,   Rev.    Sir   John,   Bart.,   6, 

7,  19,  286 
Healing  the  sick,  187 
Heart,  120,  121 

Heaven,  description  of,  115,  116 
Hegesippus,  95,  96 
Hellenism,  297 
Hellenistic  thought,  112 
Helvetian  theory,  the,  96 
Hemerobaptists,  137,  166 
Herford,  R.  T.,  2 
Hermon,  Mount,  65,  170,  317 
Herod  Agrippa.     See  Agrippa 
Herod    Antipas,     Tetrarch,     9,     52, 

68/.,  Ill,  141,  171 
• marries    daughter    of    Aretas, 

69 

divorces  daughter  of  Aretas,  70 

marries  Herodias,  70 


Herod  Antipas,  war  with  Aretas,  70 
takes      pleasure      in      hearing 

John,  155 
imprisons    John    the    Baptist, 

156 
■ —  —  threatens  to  kill  Jesus,  268 

hears  of  Jesus,  268 

desires  to  be  king,  7 1 

banished  by  Caligula,  72 

territory  of,  323 

Herod  the  Great,  47,  49,  66,  67,  281, 

315 

will  of,  49,  52 

funeral  of,  50 

disturbances    after    his    death, 

50/ 

his  palace  at  Jerusalem,  55 

Herod,  son  of  Herod  the  Great  and 

the  second  Mariamne,  70 
Herod  King  of  Chalcis,  32 
Herod   Philip,   Tetrarch   of   Tracho- 

nitis,  52,  65/,  159,  171 

his  character,  67 

^  territory  of,  270,  322 

coins  of,  67 

date  of  his  death,  318 

Herodians,  the,  98,  in 

—  conspire  with  Pharisees,  197 
Herodias,  56,  155,  158 

—  daughter    of    Aristobulus    marries 
Herod,  son  of  Mariamne,  70 

—  jealousy  of  Agrippa,  71 
Hieronymus,  96,  150 
High  priest,  61 

— ■  High  priests,  their  vestments,  56 

appointment  of,  56 

Hilgenfeld,  Dr.  Adolph,  151 
Hill,  G.  F.,  67,  75,  317 
Hillel,  Rabbi,  79,  113,  233 

—  his  ethical  trading,  82 

—  and  Christianity,  82 

— •  his  rules  of  exegesis,  83  /. 

—  his  teaching  on  divorce,  83 

—  school  of,  85 
Hippene,  73 

Hippos,  52,  73,  171,  323 
Holy,  Mansions  of  the,  116 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  the,  300 
Homonadenses,  54,  316 

Idumaea,  50,  52,  55,  323 

—  toparchy  of,  56 
Idumaeans,  the,  66 
Interpretation  of  Scripture,  128 

-the  Midrashic,  128 

the  legal  method,  1 28 

Jewish,  83 

the  allegorical  method,  129 

the  method  of  Jesus,  127/ 

Irenaeus,  Bishop  of  Lugdunum,  10,  14 


INDEX 


331 


Ismael,  Rabbi,  85 

Ismael,    son   of   Phabi,   high   priest, 

62 
Israel,  spiritual  ideals  of,  48 
Ituraea,  65,  315,  322 

Jackson,  Dr.  Foakes,  19,  20,  42 
James,  father  of  Judas,  204 
James,  son  of  Alpheus,  204 
James,  son  of  Zebedee,  202,  287/. 
James,  the  little  (or  less),  95,  206 
James,  the  Lord's  brother,  95,  96 
Jamnia,  52,  56,  61,  86,  325 
Jannes  and  Jambres,  128 
Jericho,  323 

—  Herod's  palace  burnt,  50 

—  toparchy  of,  56 
Jerome.     See  Hieronymus 
Jerusalem,  25,  56,  245,  289 

—  fall  of,  influence  on  historj^  33 

—  visit  of  Jesus  to,  41,  107 

—  the  centre  of  the  earth,  118 
Jesus  the  Christ,  Lives  of,  2 
Jewish       traditions       concern- 
ing, 2 

extra-canonical  sayings  of,  2 

conception  of  His  person,  43 

as  a  boy  visits  Jerusalem,  77 

date  of  His  birth,  315 

the  education  of,  94  Jf. 

Son  of  Mary,  94 

a  carpenter,  94 

the  brothers  of,  96 

His  home  life,  96 

interest  in  agriculture,  102 

in  animals,  102 

in  flowers,  103 

influence  of  countrj^  life,  103 

■ — • of  domestic  life,  104 

naturalness  of  His  words,  105 

His  human  characteristics,  106 

reading  and  writing,  108 

no  rabbinical  training,  108 

Did  He  know  Greek?  109 

■ —  —  His  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  109 

Psychology  of  His  words,  119 

conforms    to    scientific    beliefs 

of  His  day,  126 

His  use  of  Scripture,  127,  309 

indifference  to  criticism,  130 

His  secular  knowledge,  129 

His    teaching    based    on    Old 

Testament,  131 

His  Baptism,  146/. 

the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  147 

sjonbolism     of     His     Baptism, 

148 
significance    of    His    Baptism, 

151 
self-consciousness  of,  151 


Jesus  the  Christ,  a  disciple  of  John 
the  Baptist,  153 

does  not  baptize  Himself,  1 54 

His  disciples  baptize,  154 

returns  to  Galilee,  156 

His      answer      to      John      the 

Baptist,  156,  157 

intimacy  with  John,  167 

Uves  in  Peter's  house,  174 

calls  the  disciples,  174 

His    knowledge    of    His    Mis- 
sion, 174 

His  retirement  for  prayer,  1 75 

His  journeys,  176,  177 

forgives  the  harlot,  180 

His  popularity,  178 

forgives  sins,  180,  181 

the  Saviour  of  the  lost,  181 

His  poverty,  180 

His    power    over    evil    spirits, 

183 

and  modem  science,  185 

appeals  to  His  miracles,  187 

His  authority  unique,  186 

His  reserve,  187 

reluctance  to  perform  miracles, 

190 

opposition    to     His     teaching, 

193 

accused  of  blasphemy,  194 

relation  to  the  law,  216 

originality  of,  220 

His  humanism,  222 

element   of   paradox   in   teach- 
ing, 224 

attitude       towards      sacrificial 

system,  225 

and     the     Kingdom    of     God, 

249/. 

speculation  about  Him,  268 

multitudes    would    make    Him 

King,  271,  272 

His  retirement,  280 

His  transfiguration,  287/. 

—  • — predicts  His  death,  284,  288 

• His  temptation,  290/ 

indifference  to  signs,  308,  309 

entry  into  Jerusalem,  309 

His       suff^erings       redemptive, 

306 

length  of  His  ministry,  317 

Jesus,   son  of  See,  high  priest,  53,  61 
Jewish  cosmology,  114 

—  exegesis,  83 

—  piety,  90/ 

—  traditions,  2 

Jews,  the,  an  educated  nation,  77 
Joanna,  wife  of  Chuza,  205 
Joasar,  son  of  Boethus,  high  priest, 
S3,  58,  61 


332 


INDEX 


Jochanan-ben-Zaccai,  Rabbi,  113 
John  the  Baptist,  133/.,  254 

his  birth  and  parentage,  135 

Nazarite,  135 

life  in  the  desert,  136 

preacher  of  righteousness,  136, 

169 

his  baptism,  136 

beginning  of  his   ministry,  316 

preaches  repentance,  139 

his    study    of    Scripture,    139, 

160 

the  scene  of  his  ministry,   141 

preaches     to     Pharisees      and 

Sadducees,  141 

prophet,  143,  164 

prophesy  of  the  Messiah,  143 

his  study  of  Isaiah,  147 

narrative       in       the       Fourth 

Gospel,  153 
his    relations    with    Jesus,    40, 

i53>  167 

his  disciples,  153,  158 

length  of  his  ministry,  155 

influence    of    Isaiah    on,     156, 

enquiries  to  Jesus,  156 

his  death,  158,  269 

effects  of  his  work,  158,  159 

mythical  accounts  of,  159 

critical  objections  about,  i6o 

historical  character  of,  i6o 

not  an  Essene,  161 

apocalyptic  interpretation,   163 

Elijah,  165 

his  witness  to  Christ,  165 

date  of  his  death,  318 

John  Hyrcanus,  298 

John,  the  presbyter,  38 

John,    son    of    Zebedee,     38,    202, 

287/. 
Joppa,  52,  57,  324 
Jordan,  the,  65,  66,  281,  324,  325 
Jordan  Valley,  the,  141 
Josa  ben  Jochanan,  Rabbi,  84 
Joseph  of  Arimathea,  240,  249 
Joseph,     husband     of     the     Virgin 

Mary,  91,  94 
Josephus,    Jewish    historian,    2,    20, 

49,   SI,   59,  66,   74,  99,   155,   172, 

300,  316 

—  story  about  his  boyhood,  77 

—  his  life  in  the  desert,  136 

—  his    description    of    John's    bap- 
tism, 140 

Joshua  ben  Ananiah,  Rabbi,  226 
Joses,  95,  204 

Joses,  brother  of  our  Lord,  96 
Juba,  King  of  Mauretania,  53 
Jubilees,  the  Book  of,  124 


Judaea,  49,  51,  55,  97,  323 

—  under  a  procurator,  54  _ff. 

—  divided  into  toparchies,  56 
Judah  the  Prince,  Rabbi,  85,  86 
Judas,  brother  of  our  Lord,  96 

— ■ his  grandsons,  96 

Judas  Iscariot,  204 

Judas,  son  of  Ezekias,  50,  51 
Judas,  son  of  James,  204 
Judas,  the  Galilaean,  51,  58,  59 
Julius,  69 

Kanatha,  73,  323 

Kenyon,  Sir  F.,  57,  58 

Kingdom    of    God,    the,    130,    134, 

240/. 
• — ■  —  different  meanings  of,  30 

the  Davidic  kingdom,  241 

a  righteous  kingdom,  242 

■  Daniel,  243 

apocalyptic  expectation,  245 

• — ■  —  how  used  by  Jesus,  249  /. 
the    apocalyptic    meaning,    32, 

249,  258 
— •  —  the  divine  sovereignty,  250 

Christian  Church,  32,  250,  262 

• a  principle  of  life,  253 

—  —  the      Christian      dispensation, 

253 
— • — eternal  life,  253,  255,  262 

righteousness,  255,  262 

a  new  dispensation,  255 

-the  will  of  God,  256 

— •  —  the  time  of  the  kingdom,  256 

as  a  banquet,  259 

• —  —  its  universality,  261 

a  new  Israel,  261 

a  golden  age,  263 

Kingdom  of  Satan,  254 

Lake,  Dr.  Kirsopp,  19,  20,  30,  42 
Lamb  of  God,  152,  154 
Last  Supper,  199,  259 

date  of  the,  12 

Law,  the,  interpretation  of,  83,  84 

—  relation  of  Jesus,  to,  215 

—  the  new,  its  characteristics,  217 
Lebanon,  68,  322 

Levi,    son    of    Alphaeus,     180,    297, 

203 
Levi,  Testament  of,  298 
Lewin,  Thomas,  315 
Life,  the  garden  of,  116 
— -  the  tree  of,  116 
Lightfoot,    Dr.    J.     B.,     Bishop    of 

Durham,  96 

—  Dr.,  Hebrew  scholar,  219 
Litany,  the  River,  68,  280 

Livia,  wife  of  Augustus,  56,  60,  323 
Livias,  69 


INDEX 


333 


Lock,  Dr.  Walter,  2 

Logia,  The,  15 

Logos,  38 

Loisy,  M.  Alfred,  94 

Lord,  the,  299,  300,  306 

Love,  218 

—  new  teaching  on,  43 
Luke,  St.,  21 
Lydda,  56,  324 

Lysanias,    Tetrarch    of   Abilene,  65, 
75,  322 

Maccabaean  revolt,  the,  243,  299 

Maccabees,  the,  49,  73,  297 

Machaerus,  70,  156,  323 

Madden,  Coins  of  the  Jews,  67 

Magdala,  171 

Maimonides,  219 

Marcellus,  procurator,  64 

Mark,  John,  14 

Marsyas,  322 

Mary,    wife    of    Clopas,    mother    of 

James  the  less,  75,  204,  205 
Mary  of  Magdala,  181,  204,  205 
Mary,  the  Virgin,  91 
Matthew,  the  Apostle,  203 
Matthias,  the  Apostle,  201 
witness     of     John's     Baptism, 

Matthias,  high  priest,  61 
Mayor,  Rev.  Joseph  B.,  46 
Mechilta,  248 
Meggido,  98,  324 
Meleager  of  Gadara,  74 
Menippus  of  Gadara,  74 
Merrill,  Rev.  Selah,  97,  100,  113 
Messiah,     the,    43,     92,     136,     245, 
290/. 

—  origin  of  the  belief,  293 

—  of  the  house  of  David,  294,  307 
of  Levi,  298 

the  birthpangs  of  the,  15,  133, 

246 

—  the  Servant  as,  305 

Messianic     Age,     characteristics     of 

the,  144,  14s 

preparation  for,  169 

the    baptism    and    repentance, 

140 

—  titles,  131 

—  secret,  the,  283 

—  kingdom,  the,  290 
Michael,  the  Archangel,  123 
Midrash,  89,  229 

Ministry    of    Jesus,    crisis    of    the, 

259  ff. 
Miracles,  187,/.  312 

—  part  of  structure  of  narrative,  188 

—  narrated  in  all  sources,  188 

—  dependent  on  Faith,  189 


Miracles,  instances  of  failure,  189 

—  evidence    of    spiritual    authority, 
190 

—  integral    part    of    minstry,  191 

—  sign  of  beneficent  activity,  191 

—  relation  to  science,  192 

—  of  feeding  the  multitude,  273 
Mishna,  the,  78,  85,  86 
Moffatt,  Dr.  James,  5 
Mohammedan  rule,  99 
Mommsen,   Professor  Theodoro,   54, 

316 
Montefiore,  C.  G.,  140 
Moses,  288 

Nabataeans,  the,  65,  66,  69,  323 

Nain,  176,  323 

Nathanael,  203 

Nazareth,  97,  99,  176,  206,  323 

Nazarite,  135 

Neapolis,  (Shechem),  324 

Neara,  53 

Nebuchadnezzar,  297 

Neighbour,  Jewish  teaching  on  our, 

219 
Neubauer,  Dr.  A.,  103,  113 
Nicodemus,  visit  of,  155 
Nicolaus  of  Damascus,  49,  52 
Nietzsche,  238 
Non-resistance,  223 

Cannes,  159 

Onesiphorus,  214 

Origen  on  Symbolism,  148 

—  on  the  Temptation,  292 

Palestine,    Roman   Province   of,    55, 

61,  323 
Paneas,  67,  281,  322 
Papias,  of  Hieropolis,  9,  15 
Parable  of  the  Drawnet,  253 

—  of  the  Good  Samaritan,  24,  218 
• —  of  the  Hidden  Treasure,  253 

—  of  the  Leaven,  17,  253 

—  of  the  Lost  Piece  of  Silver,  24 

—  of  the  Lost  Sheep,  24 

—  of  the  Mustard  Seed,  17,  22,  32, 
103,  252 

—  of    the    Nobleman   who   went   to 
receive  a  Kingdom,  52 

—  of  the  Pearl,  253 

—  of  the  Pharisee  and  Publican    24 

—  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  24 

—  of  the  Rich  Fool,  24 

—  of   the    Rich  Man   and    Lazarus, 
24 

—  of  the  Seed  growing  secretly,  252 

—  of  the  Sheep  and  the  Goats,  37 

—  of  the  Sower,  251/. 

—  of  the  Tares,  37,  253 


334 


INDEX 


Parables,  their  purpose,  251 
Paradise,  117,  118 
Paralytic,  healing  of  the,  23 
Parousia,  t,2,  258 
Parthia,  71,  76 

—  Roman  policy  in,  76 
Passover,  318 

Paul  and  Thecla,  Acts  of,  214,  215 
Pella,  73,  323 
Penitent  thief,  the,  24 
Peraea,  52,  65,  68/.,  323 

—  disturbances  in,  50 
Peter,  Simon,  201,  287 

—  his  teaching  in  St.  Mark's  Gospel, 
10 

—  his  memory  of  his  call,  1 1 

—  confession  of,  282 

—  his    indignation    at    a    suffering 
Messiah,  285 

Petra,  323 

Phanuel,  the  Archangel,  123 
Pharisees,   the,    194,    213,    no,    in, 
225 

—  the  religious  pretensions  of,  134 

—  come   to  hear  John   the   Baptist, 
141 

—  scribes  of  the,  194 

—  from  Jerusalem,  278 
Phasaelis,  52,  61,  323 
Philadelphene,  73 
Philadelphia,  73,  323,  325 
Philip.     See  Herod  Philip 
Philip,  the  Apostle,  203 
Philo,  128 

Philodemus  of  Gadara,  74 
Phoenican  cities  the,  98 
Pilgrims'  way,  the,  66,  325 
Pirke  Ahoth,  80 

Pollio,  C.  Asinius,  46 
Pompeius,  Magnus,  49,  73,  244 
Pontius    Pilate,   procurator,    54,    55, 

61,  62/.  133 
■  fails   to   remove     images   from 

standards,  63 

brings  water  to  Jerusalem,  63 

his  banishment,  64 

attacks    fanatics    in    Samaria, 

places  golden  shields  in  palace, 

64 

character  of  his  rule,  65 

Poor,  the,  212,  213 

Possession,  phenomena  of,  181 

Praetorium  at  Jerusalem,  55 

Prayer,  226/ 

— -  The  Lord's,  230 

Procurator,  55 

Prophet,  the,  301 

—  John  the  Baptist,  164 

—  importance  of  a,  167 


Prosbol,  85 

Proselytes,  baptism  of,  137,  138 
Province,  the  Roman,  323 
Psalms  of  Solomon,  244,  299 
Ptolemais,  68,  323,  325 
Ptolemies,  the,  296,  297 
Publicans  and  sinners,  195 

Q.     See  Discourses 
Quirinius,  Publius  Sulpicius,  54,  57, 
59,  61,  315,  316 

Rabbeth  Ammon,  73 

Rabbinical  schools,  the,  78/. 

Rabbinical  teaching,  character  of, 
88,  89,  233,  249 

Rabbis  murdered  by  Herod,  mourn- 
ing for,  so 

Ramsay,  Sir  William,  19,  54,  57, 
316 

Raphael,  the  Archangel,  123 

Raphane,  73,  323 

Rebaptismate,  De,  151 

Redemption,  306 

Renan,  M.  Ernest,  94,  97,  100,  237 

Repentance,  139 

Resch,  Dr.  Alfred, 

Resurrection,  the  second,  243,  246 

Righteous,  the  Garden  of  the,  117 

Roads,  98,  324 

Robinson,  H.  Wheeler,  120 

Roman  Empire,  unspiritual,  48 

prepares  for  Christianity,  47 

— -  — ■  birth  travail  of,  45 

Roman  ethics,  222 

Rome,  48 

Rufus,  Annius,  procurator,  61 

Sabbath,  the,  195/,  215 

—  healing  on  the,  196 
Sabbatical  year,  85 
Sabinus,  50 
Sacramental  meal,  199 
Sacrifice.     See  Self-sacrifice. 
Sacrificial  system,  the,  225 
Sadducean     aristocracy,     the,     their 

character,  133 
Salcha,  323 
Salome,    daughter   of  Herodias,    67, 

158 
Salome,  sister  of  Herod,  her  death, 

52,  60,  323 
Salome,  wife  of  Zebedee,  95,  204,  205 
Samaria,  49,  52,  55,  56,  98,  323 

—  religious  impostor  in,  64 
Samaritan  woman,  the,  229 
Samaritans,  the,  52 

—  pollute  the  temple,  60 

Sanday,  Dr.  William,  2,  5,  33,  173. 
310,  311 


INDEX 


335 


Sanhedrin,  the,  51 

—  authority  under  procurators,  56 
Satan,  124,  182 

—  his  kingdom,  254 

Saturninus,     C.     Sentius,     Governor 

of  Syria,  316 
Saviour,  43 

Schmiedel,  Professor,  P.  \V.,  20 
Schiirer,  Dr.  Adolph,  2,  316 
Schweitzer,  Dr.  Albert,  2,  163 
Scott,  Sir  Walter,  4 
Scribes,  the,  no,  iii,  194 
Scripture,  its  use  by  our  Lord,  126 
Scriptures,    school   of   interpretation 

of,  128 
Scythopolis,  73,  323,  324 
Sebaste  (Samaria),  52,  57,  324 
Sebastien,  55 
Sejanus,  62 
Seleucidae,  297 
Self-sacrifice,  285 
Seneca,  222 
Sepphoris,  50,  69 
Sermon    on    the    Mount,    the,     17, 

207/. 
Sermon  on  the  plain,  the,  208/. 
Servant,    the,    132,    151,    178,    286, 

305 

—  the  sufi'ering,  301 
Shammai,  Rabbi,  81/. 

—  his  teaching  on  divorce,  83 
Shammai,  school  of,  86 

-its  teaching  encourages  revolt, 

Shemaiah,  Rabbi,  80 

Sheol,  117 

Sibil,  46 

Sibylline  Oracles,  138 

Sick,  healing  the,  187 

Sidon,  9,  2S0,  323 

Signs,  279,  307 

Simeon,  a  devout  man,  91,  248 

Simeon  ben  Lakish,  Rabbi,  247 

Simeon  I.,  Rabbi,  85 

Simeon  II.,  Rabbi,  85 

Simeon  III.,  Rabbi,  85 

Simcox,  W.  H.,  109 

Simon,  brother  of  our  Lord,  95 

Simon  Peter.     See  Peter 

Simon,  rebel  in  Peraea,  50,  51 

Simon,     son     of     Kamithes,     high 

priest,  62 
Simon  the  Maccabee,  167,  297 
Simon  the  Zealot,  204 
Sinners,  179 
Smith,  Rev.  Sir  George  Adam,  67, 

74,  97,  100,  325 
Soemus,  312 
Solomon,  296 
Son  of  David,  300 


Son  of  God,  43,  131,  301/. 

in  St.  John's  Gospel,  303 

Son  of  Man,   15,   32,   35,    131,   258, 

297,  299,  300,  303/. 
Sonship,  the  Divine,  150,  302 
Soul,  the,  121 
Sovereignty  of  God,  247 
Spikit,  the,  35,  122 
Spirits,  evil,  124/.,  182 

in  our  Lord's  words,  125 

recognize  Jesus,  184 

Stanton,  Dr.  V.  H.,  5,  7 

Stoics,  the,  222 

Streeter,  Rev.  B.  L.,  20,  23,  36 

Susanna,  205 

Symeon.     See  Simeon,  91 

Symeon,  cousin  of  Jesus,  95 

Synagogue,  preaching  in,  177 

—  separation  from  the,  197 
Synagogues,  the,  177 
Synoptic  Gospels.     See  Gospels 
authentic  history,  33 

not       influenced       by       later 

theology,  33,  35 

—  —  reflect       religious       ideas       of 
Palestine,  ^^t  34 

absence  of  anachronisms,  33 

their     teaching     pre-apostolic, 

36 

use  of,  36 

reflect      social     and     political 

conditions  of  Palestine,  33 
Syria,  province  of,  54,  61 
Syro-Phoenician  woman,  the,  280 

Tari,  171 
Tartarus,  124 
Taxation,  57 
Tax-gatherers,  179 
Teaching  of  Jesus,  207/ 

its  method,  210 

its  novelty,  215 

relation  to  the  law,  215 

its  originality,  220,  237 

on  wealth,  229 

its  authority,  236 

Temple,  Jesus  in  the,  77 
Temptation,  the,  151,  290/ 
Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs, 

298 
Thaddaeus,  204 
Thamna,  56 

Thecla,  Acts  of  Paul  and,  214,  215 
Theodorus  of  Galilee,  74 
Theudas,  51,  272 
Thomas  called  Didymus,  203 
Tiberias,  69,  86,  170,  171,  272 
Tiberias,     Lake     of.       See     Galilee, 

Sea  of 
Tiberius  Caesar,  61,  64,  70 


336 


INDEX 


Tiberius  Caesar,  the  fifteenth  year  of, 

317 

death  of,  71 

Tobit,  Book  of,  226,  233 

Tolstoi,  224 

Toparchies  in  Judaea,  56 

Trachonitis,  52,  65,  322 

Transfiguration,  the,  282,  287  Jf. 

Tribute  to  Caesar,  in 

Turk,  the,  99 

Turner,  Dr.  Cuthbert,  H.,  7.  315 

Twelve,  the,  200/. 

—  the  mission  of,  206 
Tyre,  9,  68,  280  323 

—  territory  of,  322 

Valerius  Gratius,  procurator,  61 
Varus,     Pub.     Quintihus,     Governor 

of  Syria,  50 
Virgil,  Messianic  Eclogue,  46 
Vitellius  Lucius,  Governor  of  Syria, 

64,  71 

Walking  on  the  sea,  271 

Warde  Fowler,  W.,  46 

Waverley  Novels,  authorship  of   4 


Wealth,  teaching  of  Jesus  on,  229/. 
Weber,  Dr.  Ferdinand,  216,  247,  248 
Wellhausen,  Professor  J.,  6,  30 

his  view  of  the  Gospels,  30/. 

Wellhausen,     Professor    J.,    opinion 

concerning  St.  Mark,  32 
Widow's  mite,  the,  228 
Will  of  God,  the,  256 
Winds,  portals  of  the,  117 
Witchcraft,  182,  183 
Witness  of  John,  165 
Word,  preaching  of  the,  252 

Yarmuk,  65,  68,  171,  323 

Zaccheus,  24 

Zacharias,      father     of     John      the 

Baptist,  91,  135 
Zadok,  leader  of  revolt,  58 
Zahn,  Dr.  Th.,  96 
Zamaris,  66 
Zealots,  the,  47,  59 
Zebedee,  sons  of,  173,  174 
Zenodorus,  75,  322 
Zenodotus,  65 
Zoroastrian  influence,  123 


V 


3 


0  7'^ 

v>   /   o 


=  57 


